Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33893543›Full record

ReviewPediatric radiology2022

Non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography/venography techniques: what are my options?

Jacob B Fleecs, Nathan S Artz, Grace S Mitchell, Sherwin S Chan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Jacob B FleecsDepartment of Radiology, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Nathan S ArtzDepartment of Radiology, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Grace S MitchellDepartment of Radiology, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Sherwin S ChanDepartment of Radiology, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA. sschan@cmh.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2393-8355

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and MR venography techniques are gaining popularity for vascular imaging because they are faster, more forgiving and less costly compared with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Non-contrast MR angiography also avoids gadolinium deposition, which is especially important in imaging children. Non-contrast MR angiography has an array of specific applications for numerous clinical indications. This review summarizes the non-contrast MR angiography methods and their relative advantages and disadvantages. The paper also guides the reader on which technique to consider when determining the optimal imaging modality for each individual patient.

Indexed as

GadoliniumMagnetic Resonance AngiographyChildContrast MediaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhlebographyContrast MediaGadoliniumChildrenMagnetic resonance angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance venographyNon-contrastSignal-to-noise ratioTechniqueVasculature

Identifiers

PMID33893543

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.