ArticleEuropean radiology2016
The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance urography using a balanced turbo field echo sequence.
Article in European radiology, 2016. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to compare the inter-observer variability and the accuracy of magnetic resonance urography (MRU) using a thin sectional balanced-turbo field echo (B-TFE) sequence for detecting ureteral calculi and to determine the effect of additional factors (size, density and location of the calculus) on the sensitivity and specificity of the MRU. MATERIALS &
methodsMRU and CT images were evaluated independently by two radiologists according to presence, density and localization of calculi. The degrees of inter-rater agreement for categorical items were evaluated by the Kappa coefficient.
resultsAccording to the 1st and 2nd observers, the sensitivity of MRU was 65.9 %, 71.8 % and the specificity of MRU was 95.9 %, 100 %, respectively. Inter-observer agreement was 84.6 % for stone detection. The larger size had a better effect on detectability (p < 0.05). Also, the higher density had a better impact on detectability (p < 0.05).
conclusionOur study has shown that B-TFE MRU was useful to detect ureteral calculi. However, B-TFE MRU has low sensitivity and high specificity in comparison with CT images. MRU is a reasonable alternative imaging technique for follow-up periods of selective groups like patients with large urinary stones, children or pregnant patients when ionizing radiation is undesirable. KEY POINTS: • According to 1st and 2nd observers, sensitivity of MRU was 65.9 %, 71.8 %, respectively. • According to 1st and 2nd observers, MRU specificity was 95.9 %, 100 %, respectively. • Interobserver agreement was found to be over 84 % for stone detection. • B-TFE sequence provides calculus follow-up without radiation. • Larger calculi and more dense calculi individually have the better effect on detectability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26984432What 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.