ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2019
Primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with unenhanced MRI for patients not eligible for CTPA: Clinical outcome.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of acute pulmonary embolism using native repeated magnetic resonance imaging acquisitions under free-breathing and without respiratory or cardiac gating. A diagnostic accuracy study.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo follow up the clinical outcome of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), in those only imaged using unenhanced, free-breathing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-seven patients aged 29-99 years (mean 70, SD 18) that could not undergo Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) were offered alternative imaging diagnostics in parallel with ongoing methodological studies validating MRI vs CTPA. Contraindications included renal failure (n = 44), severe iodine contrast allergy (n = 10), pregnancy (n = 2) and radioactive iodine therapy (n = 1). The unenhanced MRI protocol was based on free-breathing, steady-state free precession with no cardiac or respiratory gating. Retrospective review of the electronic medical record (EMR) was made of 0-12 months post-imaging and was collected during 2012-2018.
resultsAll 57 MRIs were of diagnostic quality and 12 pulmonary embolisms were diagnosed. Of the 57 patients, 44 were already on, or had started anticoagulation therapy due to clinical suspicion of PE. Four of the patients were put on anticoagulation after the positive MRI and 13 were taken off anticoagulation after a negative MRI report. Other diagnoses reported (considering dyspnea) were pleural effusion (n = 24), consolidation (n = 12) and pericardial effusion (n = 2). One patient had a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) within three months of our negative MRI result and then had a stroke within one year. Another patient suffered a stroke within three months of being diagnosed (by MRI) with PE and given anticoagulation as treatment.
conclusionsOur method supported or altered clinical decision-making and treatment in this cohort. A diagnostic tool for PE without intravenous contrast agent or radiation is of great benefit for certain patients.
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.