Observational studyAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Value of second opinion subspecialty radiology consultation in suspected abdominal medium vessel vasculitis.
Observational study 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 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Segmental Arterial Mediolysis and Other Mimics of Medium Vessel Vasculitis: A Case and Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a descriptive analysis of individuals with suspected Polyarteritis nodosa (PAN) referred for second opinion imaging consultation.
methodsA retrospective observational cohort study was performed at a single institution. A consecutive sample was performed of individuals who underwent a second opinion CT or MR angiography subspecialty radiologist consultation between January 2008 and September 2019 for suspected abdominal medium vessel vasculitis. Demographic, clinical, and imaging data were collected. Clinical and imaging findings were reported for PAN, small vessel vasculitis, and "non-vasculitis" groups. Agreement and diagnostic accuracy between final clinical and second opinion imaging diagnoses for PAN were determined. Two-tailed t-tests with a significant p-value < 0.05 were utilized.
resultsOf the 58 participants, 9 were clinically diagnosed with PAN, 11 with small vessel vasculitis (including lupus, IgA, and ANCA-associated vasculitis), and 38 with non-vasculitis diagnoses. The non-vasculitis group included 15 SAM, 3 FMD, and 1 SAM-FMD spectrum diagnoses. Higher C-reactive protein level (51 vs 17, p = 0.04) and superior mesenteric artery involvement (56% vs 21%, p = 0.04) were more common in PAN than non-vasculitis diagnoses, while arterial dissection (40% vs 0%, p = 0.02) and celiac vasculature involvement (53% vs 0%, p = 0.003) were more common in the non-vasculitis group. There was 88% agreement (51/58; Cohen's kappa 0.56); sensitivity was 67% [95%-confidence interval (CI) 30-93%] and specificity was 92% (95%-CI 80-98%).
conclusionIsolated celiac artery involvement and arterial dissection were more common in non-inflammatory vasculopathies than PAN. Our findings highlight the need for multidisciplinary collaboration and awareness of the diverse findings of abdominal vasculopathies.
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.