ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Evaluation of sporadic intracranial cavernous malformations for detecting associated developmental venous anomalies: added diagnostic value of C-arm contrast-enhanced cone-beam CT to routine contrast-enhanced MRI.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur purpose was to investigate the added diagnostic value of C-arm contrast-enhanced cone-beam CT (CE-CBCT) to routine contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in detecting associated developmental venous anomalies (DVAs) in patients with sporadic intracranial cavernous malformations (ICMs).
methodsFifty-six patients (53 with single and three with double ICMs) met the inclusion criteria. All patients had routine CE-MRI scans performed at 1.5 Tesla. The imaging studies (CE-MRI and CE-CBCT) were retrospectively and independently reviewed by two observers, with consensus by a third. Group difference, intra- and interobserver agreement, and diagnostic performance of the modalities in detecting associated DVAs were calculated. Reference standard was CE-MRI.
resultsOn CE-MRI and CE-CBCT, 37 (66%; of 56) and 47 patients (84%; of 56) had associated DVAs, respectively. In 10 patients (52.6%; of CE-MRI negatives [n=19]), CE-CBCT improved the diagnosis. Nine patients (16%; of 56) had no DVA on both imaging techniques. Difference in proportions of associated DVAs on CE-MRI and CE-CBCT was statistically significant, p < 0.05. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and area under the curve of CE-CBCT were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 90.5-100%), 47.3% (95% CI: 24.4-71.1%), 1.9 (95%CI: 1.240-2.911), 0.737 (95%CI: 0.602-0.845), respectively. Intraobserver agreement was excellent for CE-MRI, kappa (κ) coefficient = 0.960, and CE-CBCT, κ=0.931. Interobserver agreement was substantial for CE-MRI, κ=0.803, and excellent for CE-CBCT, κ=0.810.
conclusionsCE-CBCT is a useful imaging technique especially in patients with negative routine CE-MRI in terms of detecting associated DVAs. In nearly half of these particular patients, it reveals an associated DVA as a new diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Although it is known to be the gold standard, some of the DVAs associated with ICMs are underdiagnosed with CE-MRI. • In nearly half of the patients with negative routine CE-MRI, CE-CBCT reveals an associated DVA as a new diagnosis. • Intra- and interobserver agreement on CE-CBCT is excellent in terms of detecting associated DVAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30066249What 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.