ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2013
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Doppler USG and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and selective renal arteriography in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Color-coded summation images in the evaluation of renal artery stenosis before and after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Endovascular Management of Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis: Post-Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions Era Winner or False Alarm?Vascular specialist international · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are many systemic complications of conventional selective renal arteriography (SRA), such as contrast-mediated nephropathy. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) and renal artery Doppler ultrasonography (DUSG) have been used increasingly for renal artery stenosis (RAS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CE-MRA and DUSG as used for diagnosis of RAS. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe divided 130 consecutive patients investigated for resistant hypertension into 2 groups based on age: group 1 was patients <60 years old and group 2 was patients >60 year. DUSG, CE-MRA, and SRA were performed in group 1 and group 2 patients.
resultsSeventy-two patients (24 males [M], 48 females [F]) in group 1, and 58 patients (26 M, 32 F) in group 2 were included in the study. In the evaluation of clinically significant renal artery stenosis with DUSG, in group 1 the overall sensitivity was 83.33% and overall specificity was 81.82%, and in group 2 they were 69.23% and 0%, respectively, when compared with SRA. In the evaluation of clinically significant renal artery stenosis with CE-MRA, the overall sensitivity and specificity were 92.31% and 36.36%, respectively, in group 1 and 100.00% and 73.33%, respectively in group 2, when compared with SRA.
conclusionsCE-MRA is an accurate, non-invasive method for the diagnosis of RAS in patients above 60 years of age and DUSG may be the choice of diagnostic method for RAS in patients under 60 years of age.
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.