ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2010
Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in detecting renal scarring in a rat injury model.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo create a reliable rat model with small renal cortical scars and evaluate the accuracy and sensitivity of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in detecting the kinds of lesions that are associated with reflux nephropathy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 16 rats, three unilateral renal cortical lesions were created using either electrocautery or pure alcohol with the contralateral kidney serving as control. MRI on a 1.5 Tesla GE Signa was performed 10-14 days after surgery. After bolus injection of 0.2 mM/Kg Gd-DTPA, sequential MRI acquisitions were performed using a 4-inch quadrature birdcage coil. Renal and scar volumes and pathology were compared after scanning and killing.
resultsOf the 48 points of injury, 40 (83%) in the 16 rats were detected grossly. Under microscopy, 36 injuries (75%) were detected on mid-kidney cross-sections. The average lesion was 4.2 mm(3) corresponding to 0.5% of the kidney volume. Using pathological findings as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of scar detection using MRI was 69% and 93%, respectively.
conclusionA rat model was created to demonstrate the sensitivity of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detecting renal scars. Alcohol and electrocautery created reliable renal scars that were confirmed pathologically. MRI detected these lesions that averaged 4.2 mm(3) (0.5% total renal volume) with sensitivity and specificity of 69% and 93%, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.