ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Non-contrast MR angiography using three-dimensional balanced steady-state free-precession imaging for evaluation of stenosis in the celiac trunk and superior mesenteric artery: a preliminary comparative study with computed tomography angiography.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying Anatomical Predictors of Median Arcuate Ligament Overlap to Guide Selective Use of Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Non-contrast MR angiography: physical principles and clinical applications in chest, abdomen and pelvis imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography of left gastric vein in patients with gastroesophageal varices: morphology and blood supply analysis.European radiology · 2024Article
- Development of a Novel Scoring Model to Estimate the Severity Grade of Mesenteric Artery Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Accuracy of Inflow Inversion Recovery (IFIR) for Upper Abdominal Arteries Evaluation: Comparison with Contrast-Enhanced MR and CTA.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Noncontrast MR angiography: An update.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough non-contrast MR angiography (NC-MRA) is well established for the evaluation of renal artery stenosis, its usefulness in the evaluation of other abdominal aortic branches remains to be studied. This study aimed at evaluating the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of NC-MRA using a three-dimensional balanced steady-state free-precession sequence in identifying stenosis in the celiac trunk (CTR) and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) as compared with CT angiography (CTA) as the reference standard.
methods41 patients underwent both NC-MRA and CTA of the abdominal aorta. Two radiologists analyzed the quality of the images (diagnostic vs non-diagnostic) and the performance (accuracy, sensitivity and specificity) of NC-MRA for the identification of arterial stenosis. Kappa tests were used to determine the interobserver agreement and the intermethod agreement between NC-MRA and CTA.
resultsNC-MRA provided diagnostic quality images of the CTR and SMA in 87.8% and 90.2% of cases, respectively, with high interobserver agreement (kappa 0.95 and 0.80, respectively). For stenosis assessment, NC-MRA had a sensitivity of 100%, a positive-predictive value of 50% and a negative-predictive value of 100% for both segments, with accuracies of 88.8% for the CTR and 94.5% for the SMA.
conclusionNC-MRA is an accurate method for detecting stenosis in the CTR and SMA. Advances in knowledge: Data from this study suggest that MR angiography with balanced steady-state free-precession sequence is a viable non-contrast alternative for stenosis evaluation of these branches in patients for whom a contrast-enhanced examination is contraindicated.
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.