Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33532280›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021

Abdominal aortic aneurysm measurement at CT/MRI: potential clinical ramifications of non-standardized measurement technique and importance of multiplanar reformation.

Joseph R Leach, Chengcheng Zhu, Dimitrios Mitsouras, David Saloner, Michael D Hope

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Dynamic Temporal Modeling of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Morphology with Z-SINDy.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joseph R LeachUniversity of California, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Chengcheng ZhuUniversity of California, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dimitrios MitsourasUniversity of California, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
David SalonerUniversity of California, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Michael D HopeUniversity of California, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

MRI of Structure and Function in Assessing Hemodynamic Impact on AAA EvolutionR01HL114118 · NHLBI · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI SALONER, DAVID A · 2014 to 2017
$1.8M
Hemodynamic and inflammatory imaging in evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysmsR01HL123759 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HOPE, MICHAEL DOUGLAS · 2015 to 2018
$1.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL114118NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL123759
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate and reproducible measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size is an essential component of patient management, and most reliably performed at CT using a multiplanar reformat (MPR) strategy. This approach is not universal, however. This study aims to characterize the measurement error present in routine clinical assessment of AAAs and the potential clinical ramifications. Patients were included if they had AAA assessed by CT and/or MRI at two time points at least 6 months apart. Clinical maximal AAA diameter, assessed by non-standardized methods, was abstracted from the radiology report at each time point and compared to the reference aneurysm diameter measured using a MPR strategy. Discrepancies between clinical and reference diameters, and associated aneurysm enlargement rates were analyzed. Two hundred thirty patients were included, with average follow-up 3.3±2.5 years. When compared to MPR-derived diameters, clinical aneurysm measurement inaccuracy was, on average, 3.3 mm. Broad limits of agreement were found for both clinical diameters [-6.7 to +6.5 mm] and aneurysm enlargement rates [-4.6 to +4.2 mm/year] when compared to MPR-based measures. Of 78 AAAs measuring 5-6 cm by the MPR method, 21 (26.9%) were misclassified by the clinical measurement with respect to a common repair threshold (5.5 cm), of which 5 were misclassified as below, and 16 were misclassified as above the threshold. The clinical use of non-standardized AAA measurement strategies can lead to incorrect classification of AAAs as larger or smaller than the commonly accepted repair threshold of 5.5 cm and can induce large errors in quantification of aneurysm enlargement rate.

Indexed as

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)multiplanar reformat (MPR)

Identifiers

PMID33532280
PMCPMC7779927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.