Author N Capsule endoscopy Cross sectional imaging Statistical significance Eliakim [23] 2004 CTE 35 77% 20% p <0.05 Voderholzer [24] 2005 CTE 41 25/41 (61%) 12/41 (29%) p=0.004 Hara [25] 2006 CT 17 12/17 (71%) 9/17 (53%) n.s. Solem [26] 2008 CTE 28 83% 67% n.s. Albert [27] 2005 MRI 52 25/27 (93%) 21/27 (78%) n.s. Golder [28] 2006 MRI 18 12 /18 (66%) 1/18 (5%) p=0.016 Tillack 2008 MRI 19 18/19 (95%) 18/19 (95%) n.s. Böcker [30] 2011 MRI 21 9/21 (43%) 6/21 (29%) Proximal small bowel Jensen [14] Casciani[52] 2011 2011 MRI and CTE MRI 93 37 100% 10/11 (91%) 81 % (MRI) 76% (CTE) 19/19 (100%) Proximal small bowel n.s.

Table 2: Comparison of diagnostic yield or sensitivity in cross sectional imaging techniques and in endoscopy in diagnosing small bowel Crohn’s disease; CTE – computed tomography enterography; MRI – magnetic resonance imaging; CE – Capsule endoscopy.