ReviewCureus2020
Isolated Renal Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review of Case Reports.
Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Localized renal artery vasculopathy: avoiding misdiagnosis between inflammatory arteritis and isolated renal artery dissection.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Review
- Spontaneous renal artery dissection with renal artery stenting: A case report.Urology case reports · 2026Article
- International Cross Sectional Survey on the Management of Visceral Artery Aneurysms and Isolated Dissections from the European Visceral Artery Revascularisation (EVisAR) Study Participants.EJVES vascular forum · 2026Article
- Renal Artery Stenting for Traumatic Dissection.Cureus · 2025Article
- Spontaneous renal artery dissection leading to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and eventual death: A case report.Medicine · 2025Article
- Multiple Renal Infarctions in Spontaneous Double Renal Artery Dissection: A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of spontaneous renal artery dissection: a 10-year retrospective single-center experience.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Clinical characteristics, treatment and outcomes of patients with spontaneous renal artery dissections.Journal of nephrology · 2023Article
- [Rare cause of renal infarction in a 28-year-old male patient].Der Internist · 2022Article
- Arterial dissections: Common features and new perspectives.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Spontaneous renal artery dissection: angioplasty with stent implantation in one-year follow-up.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2022Article
- Spontaneous renal artery dissection: an elusive diagnosis.BMJ case reports · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Isolated renal artery dissection (IRAD) is a rare and often unrecognized clinical entity, with a paucity of data on its epidemiology and management. We extracted 129 cases of IRAD from the medical literature between 1972 and 2016. IRAD as a result of an extended dissection from the aorta and splanchnic or mesenteric arteries was excluded. The mean age of presentation was 42.7±12.9 years, with a male predominance (79%). Abdominal pain (75.9%) was the most common presenting symptom. Etiology was more likely to be spontaneous (76%) than traumatic (12%), iatrogenic (9%), or drug-induced (1.5%). The most common risk factors were hypertension (28.7%), fibromuscular dysplasia (8.5%), and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (5.4%). Unilateral renal artery dissection (right 45.5%, left 40.5%) was more frequent than bilateral (14%). More than half (56.6%) of the cohort were managed medically (blood pressure control and /or anticoagulation). Of those who underwent intervention, endovascular stenting or embolization (35%) was utilized more frequently than nephrectomy or bypass (21%). Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) have the highest diagnostic sensitivity (91% and 93%, respectively) as compared to ultrasonography (27%). A high degree of clinical suspicion is required to diagnose IRAD. CT and MRI have a higher diagnostic sensitivity. As compared to invasive management, conservative management has comparable outcomes.
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.