Observational studyEuropean journal of radiology2016
Incidence of actionable findings on contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography ordered for pulmonary embolism evaluation.
Observational study in European journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The undiagnosed potential clinically significant incidental findings of neck CTA: A large retrospective single-center study.Medicine · 2020Article
- "Structure-Function Imaging of Lung Disease Using Ultrashort Echo Time MRI".Academic radiology · 2019Review
- Downstream Imaging Utilization After MR Angiography Versus CT Angiography for the Initial Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2018Observational
- Clinical outcomes after magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus computed tomographic angiography (CTA) for pulmonary embolism evaluation.Emergency radiology · 2018Article
- Magnetic resonance angiography for the primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: A review from the international workshop for pulmonary functional imaging.World journal of radiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the incidence of actionable findings on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scans performed for the primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a HIPAA-compliant and IRB-approved single center, retrospective study of consecutive series of patients evaluated with contrast-enhanced MRA for PE. The final radiology report of each MRA was reviewed. All technically adequate negative exams were included in the analysis. The findings were divided into three types: those requiring further action (actionable-Type 1) those not requiring follow-up (non-actionable-Type 2) and normal exams. We compared our results with the literature regarding the use of computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in this scenario using Fisher's exact test.
results580 MRA scans for PE were performed. There were 561/580 (97%) technically adequate exams. Of these, 514/580 (89%) were negative and 47/580 (8%) were positive for PE. In the PE negative group of 514 exams, Type 1 findings were identified in 85/514 (17%), 188/514 (36%) cases were Type 2 and 241/514 (47.0%) were Type 3. There was no significant difference between the incidence of Type 1 and the combination of Type 2 and Type 3 findings on MRA and the reported incidence of actionable findings derived from CTA negative exams for PE (p<0.5).
conclusionMRA as a first-line test for PE can identify actionable findings in those patients without PE, with an incidence similar to that reported in the literature for CTA.
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.