Duodenitis: A reliable radiologic diagnosis?

Marc S. Levine, Donna Turner, Olle Ekberg, Stephen E. Rubesin, David A. Katzka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

The authors performed a retrospective study of 50 patients with endoscopically diagnosed duodenitis who had undergone double-contrast upper gastrointestinal (GI) examinations. Duodenitis was diagnosed on the original radiographic reports in six of 37 patients (16%) with mild-to-moderate duodenitis, five of 13 patients (38%) with severe duodenitis, and 11 of 50 patients (22%) with all grades of duodenitis on endoscopy. Subsequent analysis of the films revealed one or more radiologic signs of duodenitis (including folds more than 4 mm in thickness, mucosal nodularity, bulbar deformity, and erosions) in 18 of 37 patients (49%) with mild-to-moderate duodenitis, eight of 13 patients (62%) with severe duodenitis, and 26 of 50 patients (52%) with all grades of duodenitis on endoscopy. In a separate part of the study, the authors identified another 20 patients with radiographically diagnosed duodenitis who had undergone endoscopic examinations. Nine of those 20 patients (45%) had duodenitis on endoscopy. Subsequent analysis of the films revealed one or more signs of duodenitis in 17 patients from this group. Nine of the latter patients (53%) had duodenitis on endoscopy. Using established radiologic criteria for duodenitis, our rate of false-positive and false-negative radiologic diagnoses still was about 50%. Thus, the double-contrast upper GI examination is a relatively unreliable technique for diagnosing duodenitis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-103
Number of pages5
JournalGastrointestinal Radiology
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 1991

Keywords

  • Duodenitis, diagnosis
  • Duodenum, radiography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Duodenitis: A reliable radiologic diagnosis?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this