ArticleSkeletal radiology2021
Intravenous contrast does not improve detection of nerve lesions or active muscle denervation changes in MR neurography of the common peroneal nerve.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodality imaging review of ulnar nerve pathologies.The neuroradiology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) contrast on sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) neurography of the knee with attention to the common peroneal nerve (CPN) in identifying nerve lesions and active muscle denervation changes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective search for contrast-enhanced MR neurography cases evaluating the CPN at the knee was performed. Patients with electrodiagnostic testing (EDX) within 3 months of imaging were included and those with relevant prior surgery were excluded. Two radiologists independently reviewed non-contrast sequences and then 4 weeks later evaluated non-contrast and contrast sequences. McNemar's tests were performed to detect a difference between non-contrast only and combined non-contrast and contrast sequences in identifying nerve lesions and active muscle denervation changes using EDX as the reference standard.
resultsForty-four exams in 42 patients (2 bilateral) were included. Twenty-eight cases had common peroneal neuropathy and 29, 21, and 9 cases had active denervation changes in the anterior, lateral, and posterior compartment/proximal muscles respectively on EDX. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of non-contrast versus combined non-contrast and contrast sequences for common peroneal neuropathy were 50.0%, 56.2%, and 52.3% versus 50.0%, 56.2%, and 52.3% for reader 1 and 57.1%, 50.0%, and 54.5% versus 64.3%, 56.2%, and 61.4% for reader 2. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of non-contrast and combined non-contrast and contrast sequences in identifying active denervation changes for anterior, lateral, and posterior compartment muscles were not significantly different. McNemar's tests were all negative.
conclusionIV contrast does not improve the ability of MR neurography to detect CPN lesions or active muscle denervation changes.
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.