Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23338955›Full record

ArticleHerz2013

How to distinguish between inconsistencies in CTA results and DSA findings: interobserver variability cannot be ignored.

K Liu, J Chen, Y Peng, S He, X Chen

Abstract readCase Reports
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Herz, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K LiuDepartment of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
J Chen
Y Peng
S He
X Chen
West China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Renovascular hypertension (RVH) is a common cause of secondary hypertension. Noninvasive tests such as computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography have a high specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is, however, the gold standard with which RVH can be reliably diagnosed. We report the case of a 30-year-old Chinese man with right ureter malformation and stenosis of the entire right renal artery. We discuss how to distinguish between inconsistencies in CTA results and DSA findings. Interobserver variability is an important factor that leads to such inconsistencies and cannot be ignored. Importantly, clinicians should combine imaging findings with the patient's medical history and clinical manifestations rather than blindly believing the DSA results so as to avoid unnecessary medical disputes.

Indexed as

AdultAngiography, Digital SubtractionDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansMaleObserver VariationRenal Artery ObstructionReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID23338955
OpenAlexW1236843764

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.