ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Renal artery assessment with non-enhanced MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography: comparison between 1.5 and 3.0 T.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of non-contrast quiescent-interval slice-selective (QISS) magnetic resonance angiography for evaluation of the renal arterial vasculature compared to computed tomography angiography (CTA) as reference standard.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Radiologic evaluation of the kidney transplant donor and recipient.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Non-contrast MR angiography: physical principles and clinical applications in chest, abdomen and pelvis imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- A Non-Coronary, Peripheral Arterial Atherosclerotic Disease (Carotid, Renal, Lower Limb) in Elderly Patients-A Review: Part I-Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Atherosclerosis-Related Diversities in Elderly Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis: The Update and Future Directions from Interventional Perspective.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- IVIM-DKI for differentiation between prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3 T MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease: A KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) Controversies Conference.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2022Article
- One-stop preoperative assessment of renal vessels for living donors with 3.0 T non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: compared with computerized tomography angiography and surgical results.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- One-stop assessment of renal function and renal artery in hypertensive patients with suspected renal dysfunction: non-enhanced MRI using spatial labeling with multiple inversion pulses.European radiology · 2021Article
- Musculoskeletal MRI at 7 T: do we need more or is it more than enough?European radiology experimental · 2020Review
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
objectivesTo compare non-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (NE-MRA) between 1.5 and 3.0-T using a balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) sequence in the assessment of renal artery stenosis (RAS) with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as a reference standard.
methodsFrom March 2016 to May 2018, 81 patients suspected to have significant RAS were scheduled for DSA. All patients underwent NE-MRA at either 1.5 T or 3.0 T randomly before DSA. In total, 49 patients underwent 1.5-T NE-MRA, and 32 patients underwent 3.0-T NE-MRA. Image quality was assessed. Degree of stenosis evaluated with NE-MRA was compared with that with DSA.
resultsNE-MRA provided excellent image qualities for segment 1 and segment 2 at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Image qualities for segment 3 and segment 4 and the degree of renal artery branches were significantly higher at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T (p < 0.01). Stenoses evaluated with NE-MRA at 1.5 T (r = 0.853, p < 0.01) and 3.0 T (r = 0.811, p < 0.01) were highly correlated with those of DSA. The Bland-Altman plots showed overestimated degrees of stenosis at 1.5 T (mean bias, 3.5% ± 20.4) and 3.0 T (mean bias, 8.4% ± 21.7). The sensitivity and specificity for significant stenosis were 97.4% and 89.8% for 1.5 T and 95.7% and 91.1% for 3.0 T.
conclusionsBoth 1.5-T and 3.0-T bSSFP NE-MRA can reliably assess RAS, with high image quality and good diagnostic accuracy. Performing NE-MRA at 3.0 T significantly improved visualization of renal artery branches but showed greater tendency to overestimate stenosis compared with that at 1.5 T. KEY POINTS: • Both 1.5-T and 3.0-T NE-MRA provide excellent image quality and good diagnostic accuracy for RAS. • NE-MRA at 3.0 T improved visualization of renal artery branches compared with that at 1.5 T.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31797079What 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.