ArticleEmergency radiology2017
Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a venous phase in CT angiography of the extremities in the setting of trauma: is vein imaging in vain?
Article in Emergency radiology, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hidden dangers: the radiologist's role in diagnosing arterial injuries after orthopaedic surgery of the lower limb.Emergency radiology · 2026Review
- Roles of Trauma CT and CTA in Salvaging the Threatened or Mangled Extremity.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, IncReview
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study examined the value of including a venous phase in addition to the initial arterial phase in the CT angiography evaluation of extremity trauma.
methodsCT studies from 157 patients (average age 38 years, age range 18-89 years, male 83%, female 17%) were obtained for trauma to the upper or lower extremity with both arterial and venous phases and retrospectively reviewed. The detection rate and type of vascular injury were evaluated by using the arterial phase alone and compared to the detection rate when interpreting the arterial and venous phases together.
resultsArterial injury was identified in 35 cases (22%), and venous injury was identified in seven cases (5%). Four cases of discrepant diagnoses were identified between image interpretation of the arterial phase alone and interpretation using both phases, all of which were venous injuries that were visible only on the venous phase. None of the four cases of venous injury required a change in surgical management. Overall, no significant difference in diagnosis between the two methods of image interpretation (arterial phase alone, arterial and venous phases) was discovered (p > 0.125; CI 95%).
conclusionsThe use of a venous phase in the CT angiography evaluation of extremity trauma does not add significant arterial diagnostic or clinical management value despite its potential of increasing the diagnostic detection rate of venous injury.
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.