ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020
Fat-suppressed magnetic resonance volume interpolated examination for deep venous thrombosis compared with duplex sonography.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of Deep Venous Pathology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of true fast imaging with steady-state precession, MR pulmonary angiography and volume-interpolated body examination for pulmonary embolism compared with CT pulmonary angiography.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate magnetic resonance venography (MRV) scanned by breath-hold volume interpolated body examination with spectral fat saturation (VIBE-fs), combined with Dixon fat-suppressed VIBE (VIBE-Dixon) by using a 1.5T MR scanner for detecting deep venous thrombosis (DVT) compared with duplex sonography. A total of 31 patients with DVT were identified using duplex sonography and were enrolled in the present study for MRV examination, from the inferior vena cava to the ankle level after injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Venous segment-to-segment comparison was assessed for DVT detection between MRV and duplex sonography. A total of two radiologists separately performed subjective image quality assessment using a 5-point scale. Cohen's κ coefficient, Wilcoxon rank sum test and intraclass correlation coefficient values were used for statistical analysis. Of the 303 evaluated vein segments, duplex sonography identified 119 (39.3%; 119/303) venous segments with thrombus, while MRV detected 170 (56.1%; 170/303) venous segments with thrombus. The diagnostic agreement rate of DVT between duplex sonography and MRV was poor in the deep femoral vein and anterior tibial veins, while it was excellent in the inferior vena cava (IVC), common iliac vein, external iliac vein, femoral vein, popliteal vein, posterior tibial veins and peroneal veins. In addition, poor reliability was detected in the deep femoral vein, anterior tibial veins and peroneal veins, but good to excellent reliability was observed in IVC, common iliac vein, external iliac vein, femoral vein, popliteal vein and posterior tibial veins. Furthermore, image quality scores of each venous segment between the two radiologists indicated no statistical difference. Therefore, MRV scanned using VIBE-fs for the suprainguinal and VIBE-Dixon for the infrainguinal region may be a useful method for detecting DVT compared with duplex sonography. The results of present study proved this MR protocol to be a beneficial alternative imaging modality for the detection of DVT when duplex sonography is inadequate or not able to be performed.
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.