Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15997367›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2006

Cost analysis of procedures related to the management of renal artery stenosis from various perspectives.

Debby van Helvoort-Postulart, Carmen D Dirksen, Abraham A Kroon, Patricia J Nelemans, Peter W de Leeuw, Alfons G H Kessels, Jos M A van Engelshoven, M G Myriam Hunink

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Debby van Helvoort-PostulartDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, University Hospital, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. debby.van.helvoort@home.nl
Carmen D Dirksen
Abraham A Kroon
Patricia J Nelemans
Peter W de Leeuw
Alfons G H Kessels
Jos M A van Engelshoven
M G Myriam Hunink
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMaastricht University · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To determine the costs associated with the diagnostic work-up and percutaneous revascularization of renal artery stenosis from various perspectives. A prospective multicenter comparative study was conducted between 1998 and 2001. A total of 402 hypertensive patients with suspected renal artery stenosis were included. Costs were assessed of computed tomography angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), digital subtraction angiography (DSA), and percutaneous revascularization. From the societal perspective, DSA was the most costly (euro 1,721) and CTA the least costly diagnostic technique (euro 424). CTA was the least costly imaging procedure irrespective of the perspective used. The societal costs associated with percutaneous renal artery revascularization ranged from euro 2,680 to euro 6,172. Overall the radiology department incurred the largest proportion of the total societal costs. For the management of renal artery stenosis, performing the analysis from different perspectives leads to the same conclusion concerning the least costly diagnostic imaging and revascularization procedure.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAngiographyAngiography, Digital SubtractionCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRenal Artery ObstructionTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID15997367
OpenAlexW2052453138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.