Abstract Background Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is a non-invasive, real-time tool that is increasingly used for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) monitoring. While its diagnostic accuracy is well documented, patient acceptability remains a major determinant of its integration into routine practice. Methods A cross-sectional online survey of 40 questions was distributed to members of the French association of patients (AFA) with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) between June and August 2025. The questionnaire asked about clinical characteristics, lived experience with IUS, and preferences for colonoscopy, entero-MRI, and fecal calprotectin. The acceptability and obstacles to performing perineal ultrasound were also evaluated. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and free responses were qualitatively analyzed. Results Of the 926 respondents (CD, 56% and UC, 41%; mean age: 43 years; 76% women). Ileal (L1, 47%) and rectal (E1, 34%) involvement were the most frequent locations in CD and UC, respectively. 302 (33%) had already benefited from an IUS for the follow-up of their IBD. While 95% felt the duration was appropriate, only 10% felt the exam was uncomfortable/very uncomfortable, 64% reported no pain, and 81% reported no psychological discomfort. Regarding overall acceptability, 87% of patients would accept the IUS at each consultation. Compared to other modalities: 55% consistently preferred IUS to colonoscopy, and 37% in some cases. 48% consistently preferred IUS to entero-MRI, and 26% in some cases. 22% preferred IUS to fecal calprotectin, the latter being perceived as complementary. While the results were considered “very clearly explained” by 61%, the lack of information (51%) and the perceived performance of the IUS were the main obstacles to the implementation of the IUS. Respectively, 47%, 21% and 16% of patients considered IUS to be less effective than colonoscopy, MRI or calprotectin. Regarding perineal ultrasound, only 36 patients (3.8% had already benefited from it). Almost half of them found it uncomfortable, with psychological discomfort in a third. The qualitative analysis (n = 164) highlighted three main themes: (1) IUS is experienced as a welcome and minimally invasive alternative, (2) doubts exist regarding diagnostic reliability compared to standards, (3) patients deplore disparities in access and a need for training/institutional recognition. Conclusion This large national survey demonstrates high acceptability of IUS among IBD patients in France, underscoring its potential as a key tool for routine follow-up. To optimize its integration into clinical practice, concerns about reliability and access must be addressed through improved communication, standardized training, and stronger institutional support References: The Patient Experience with Point-of-Care Intestinal Ultrasound for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Monitoring: A Multicenter Study. Emily Gore PMID: 40968300 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-025-09390-4 Review Article: Extending the Frontiers of Intestinal Ultrasound Knowledge, Performance and Expansion. Cathy Lu, Bram Verstockt PMID: 41235810 DOI : 10.1111/apt.70449 Conflict of interest: Dr. Mclellan, Paul: boards for Abbviet and Johson audrey, Malet: No conflict of interest catherine, reenaers: No conflict of interest Restellini, Sophie: Speaker and/or advisory board member for: AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sandoz, Vifor, Dr Falk, iQone, Lilly, Ferring and UCB Wils, Pauline: fees abbvie celltrion Yzet, Clara: No conflict of interest deborah, hassid: No conflict of interest Venezia, Franck: fees amgen abbvie takeda Aygalenq, Philippe: fees abbvie takeda Lagier, Emmanuel: No conflict of interest Buisson, Anne: No conflict of interest Fumery, Mathurin: Grant: Pfizer Personal Fees: Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, Biogen, Amgen, Sandoz, Fresenius, Gilead, Celgene, Galapagos, Mylan, Tillots, Ferring, Pfizer, Hospira, CTMA, Boehringer, Lilly, Arena Non-financial Support: Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, Galapagos, Ferring, Pfizer
Mclellan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.