ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Non-contrast MR angiography versus contrast enhanced MR angiography for detection of renal artery stenosis: a comparative analysis in 400 renal arteries.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-Subtractive Arterial Spin Labeling-Based (NSASL) Renal Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA): Development and Clinical Feasibility Evaluation.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- The evaluation of non-contrast MRA using a modified balanced steady state free precession technique in the follow-up of renal artery aneurysm after embolotherapy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Apparent diffusion coefficient of kidneys with non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography for functional and anatomical assessment in renal artery stenosis.World journal of methodology · 2026Article
- 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
- Review of strategies to reduce the contamination of the water environment by gadolinium-based contrast agents.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis: The Update and Future Directions from Interventional Perspective.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Efficacy and reliability of three-dimensional fusion guidance for fluoroscopic navigation in transarterial embolization for refractory musculoskeletal pain.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
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
purposeIn this study, we compared non-contrast MR angiography (NC-MRA) with conventional 3D contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) in patients suspected to have renal artery stenosis (RAS).
methodsFrom March 2014 to March 2020, patients who were evaluated for RAS and had a glomerular filtration rate > 30 ml/min/1.73 m
resultsDuring the study period, 201 patients were enrolled (400 renal arteries). For hemodynamically significant (grade 3/4) stenosis, NC-MRA correctly diagnosed 72 patients (95 arteries) while in 2 patients (2 arteries), NC-MRA underdiagnosed the stenosis as grade 2 (these were found to have grade 3 stenosis on CE-MRA). The kappa value of agreement between NC-MRA and CE-MRA for detection of RAS showing excellent agreement (p < 0.001).
conclusionIn one of the largest series of patients so far, we found that NC-MRA is a viable alternative to CE-MRA for detection of RAS, highly correlating with CE-MRA for grade of stenosis and with additional advantage of lack of gadolinium based contrast agents toxicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33136181What 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.