Observational studyJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2019
Prospective evaluation of MRI compared with CT for the etiology of abdominal pain in emergency department patients with concern for appendicitis.
Observational study in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid MRI Abdomen for Assessment of Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis in the General Adult Population: a Systematic Review.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of acute appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- MRI as an alternative to CT after inconclusive ultrasound in subacute/acute abdominal pain in young women: a prospective multicenter noninferiority study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Abdominal fellowship-trained versus generalist radiologist accuracy when interpreting MR and CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis.European radiology · 2022Observational
- Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography and ultrasound for the diagnosis of female pelvic pathology.Emergency radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputed tomography (CT) is commonly used in the Emergency Department (ED) to evaluate patients with abdominal pain, but exposes them to ionizing radiation, a possible carcinogen. MRI does not utilize ionizing radiation and may be an alternative. PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of MRI and CT for acute abdominopelvic ED diagnoses. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, observational cohort. POPULATION: ED patients ≥12 years old and undergoing CT for possible appendicitis. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T MRI, including T ASSESSMENT: Three radiologists independently interpreted each MRI and CT image set separately and blindly, using a standard case report form. Assessments included likelihood of appendicitis, presence of an alternative diagnosis, and likelihood that the alternative diagnosis was causing the patient's symptoms. An expert panel utilized chart review and follow-up phone interviews to determine all final diagnoses. Times to complete image acquisition and image interpretation were also calculated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Sensitivity was calculated for each radiologist and by consensus (≥2 radiologists in agreement) and are reported as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Two-sided hypothesis tests comparing the sensitivities of the three image types were conducted using Pearson's chi-squared test with the traditional significance level of P = 0.05.
resultsThere were 15 different acute diagnoses identified on the CT/MR images of 113 patients. Using individual radiologist interpretations, the sensitivities of noncontrast-enhanced MRI (NCE-MR), contrast-enhanced MR (CE-MR), and CT for any acute diagnosis were 77.0% (72.6-81.4%), 84.2% (80.4-88.0%), and 88.7% (85.5-92.1%). Sensitivity of consensus reads was 82.0% (74.9-88.9%), 87.1% (81.0-93.2%), 92.2% (87.3-97.1%), respectively. There was no difference in sensitivities between CE-MR and CT by individual (P = 0.096) or consensus interpretations (P = 0.281), although NCE-MR was inferior to CT in both modes of analysis (P < 0.001, P = 0.031, respectively). DATA
conclusionThe sensitivity of CE-MR was similar to CT when diagnosing acute, nontraumatic abdominopelvic pathology in our cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1651-1658.
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.