Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology · 2026
Comparison of endoscopy and mobile health index for ulcerative colitis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sommervoll Frigg Åslaugsdatter, Songstad Martha Maria Eide, von Volkmann Hilde Løland, Nylund Kim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: At Haukeland University Hospital, the Mobile Health Index for Ulcerative Colitis (MHI-UC), a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), is used in the outpatient clinic to detect disease activity in patients. The primary objective of the study was to compare the MHI-UC with the endoscopic Mayo score (e-MAYO) in a Norwegian cohort, and to investigate the impact on treatment decisions and response.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is single-center and retrospective. Patients were identified by searching patient journals and screened for participation. Patients who had answered the MHI-UC within ±4 weeks of endoscopy, with no change in treatment, were eligible. Clinical intervention involved treatment changes or referrals to endoscopy or cross-sectional imaging. For those with multiple endoscopies, data from all were collected. Response was defined as a change in e-MAYO score of 1 or more.
RESULTS: The MHI-UC correlated with endoscopic activity scored by e-MAYO (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). The AUROC for detecting endoscopic disease activity was 0.92 for e-MAYO > 1 and 0.78 for e-MAYO > 0. Patients receiving a clinical intervention (4.3 ± 3.5 vs 2.3 ± 2.7, p = 0.001) or with a change in e-MAYO (3.9 ± 2.7 points vs 0.7 ± 2.8 points) had a significantly higher MHI-UC compared to those without need for intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The MHI-UC corresponds well with the endoscopic evaluation in patients with UC. The MHI-UC can be used to detect moderate to severe disease activity in UC with high accuracy and to detect changes in endoscopic activity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is single-center and retrospective. Patients were identified by searching patient journals and screened for participation. Patients who had answered the MHI-UC within ±4 weeks of endoscopy, with no change in treatment, were eligible. Clinical intervention involved treatment changes or referrals to endoscopy or cross-sectional imaging. For those with multiple endoscopies, data from all were collected. Response was defined as a change in e-MAYO score of 1 or more.
RESULTS: The MHI-UC correlated with endoscopic activity scored by e-MAYO (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). The AUROC for detecting endoscopic disease activity was 0.92 for e-MAYO > 1 and 0.78 for e-MAYO > 0. Patients receiving a clinical intervention (4.3 ± 3.5 vs 2.3 ± 2.7, p = 0.001) or with a change in e-MAYO (3.9 ± 2.7 points vs 0.7 ± 2.8 points) had a significantly higher MHI-UC compared to those without need for intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The MHI-UC corresponds well with the endoscopic evaluation in patients with UC. The MHI-UC can be used to detect moderate to severe disease activity in UC with high accuracy and to detect changes in endoscopic activity.