Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28707187›Full record

ReviewCardiovascular engineering and technology2017

Imaging in Vascular Access.

Eoin A Murphy, Rose A Ross, Robert G Jones, Stephen J Gandy, Nicolas Aristokleous, Marco Salsano, Jonathan R Weir-McCall, Shona Matthew, John Graeme Houston

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05136859 (Inflammatory Marker and Pre-existing Venous Fibrosis to Predict AVF Mal-maturation), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05136859 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Inflammatory Marker and Pre-existing Venous Fibrosis to Predict AVF Mal-maturation

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Taiwan University HospitalRan2021 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsArteriovenous FistulaArmspreserve
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Eoin A MurphyMetabolic and Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Rose A RossNHS Tayside Vascular Department, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Robert G JonesDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
Stephen J GandyNHS Tayside Clinical Radiology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Nicolas AristokleousMetabolic and Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Marco SalsanoMetabolic and Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Jonathan R Weir-McCallMetabolic and Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Shona MatthewMetabolic and Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
John Graeme HoustonMetabolic and Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. ghouston@nhs.net.

Funding

Seventh Framework Programme 324487
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review examines four imaging modalities; ultrasound (US), digital subtraction angiography (DSA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), that have common or potential applications in vascular access (VA). The four modalities are reviewed under their primary uses, techniques, advantages and disadvantages, and future directions that are specific to VA. Currently, US is the most commonly used modality in VA because it is cheaper (relative to other modalities), accessible, non-ionising, and does not require the use of contrast agents. DSA is predominantly only performed when an intervention is indicated. MRI is limited by its cost and the time required for image acquisition that mainly confines it to the realm of research where high resolution is required. CT's short acquisition times and high resolution make it useful as a problem-solving tool in complex cases, although accessibility can be an issue. All four imaging modalities have advantages and disadvantages that limit their use in this particular patient cohort. Current imaging in VA comprises an integrated approach with each modality providing particular uses dependent on their capabilities. MRI and CT, which currently have limited use, may have increasingly important future roles in complex cases where detailed analysis is required.

Indexed as

Angiography, Digital SubtractionArteriovenous FistulaBlood Vessel ProsthesisCentral Venous CathetersHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRenal DialysisTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyVascular Access DevicesVascular PatencyArteriovenous fistulaComputed tomographyDigital subtraction angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingMedical imagingUltrasoundVascular access

Identifiers

PMID28707187
PMCPMC5573761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.