ArticlePloS one2016
Image Quality and Stenosis Assessment of Non-Contrast-Enhanced 3-T Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease Compared with Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Access Route for Endovascular Treatment by Time-Spatial Labeling Inversion Pulse (Time-SLIP) MRA and Contrast-Enhanced MRA.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2023Article
- Noncontrast MR angiography: An update.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Review
- Serum cystatin C is associated with large cerebral artery stenosis in acute ischemic stroke.Oncotarget · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of flow-sensitive dephasing (FSD)-prepared steady-state free precession (SSFP) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) at 3 T for imaging infragenual arteries relative to contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). MATERIALS AND
methodsA series of 16 consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) underwent a combined peripheral MRA protocol consisting of FSD-MRA for the calves and large field-of-view CE-MRA. DSA was performed on all patients within 1 week of the MR angiographies. Image quality and degree of stenosis was assessed by two readers with rich experience. Inter-observer agreement was determined using kappa statistics. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis determined the diagnostic value of FSD-MRA, CE-MRA, and CE-MRA combined with FSD-MRA (CE+FSD MRA) in predicting vascular stenosis.
resultsAt the calf station, no significantly difference of subjective image quality scores was found between FSD-MRA and CE-MRA. Inter-reader agreement was excellent for both FSD-MRA and CE-MRA. Both of FSD-MRA and CE-MRA carry a stenosis overestimation risk relative to DSA standard. With DSA as the reference standard, ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve was largest for CE+FSD MRA. The greatest sensitivity and specificity were obtained when a cut-off stenosis score of 2 was used.
conclusionIn patients with severe PAD,3 T FSD-MRA provides good-quality diagnostic images without a contrast agent and is a good supplement for CE-MRA. CE+FSD MRA can improve the accuracy of vascular stenosis diagnosis.
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.