ReviewPediatric radiology2023
Pediatric magnetic resonance angiography: to contrast or not to contrast.
Review in Pediatric radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aorto-Renal Dysplasia in Childhood: The Overlap of Neurofibromatosis Type 1 and Pediatric Renovascular Hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2026Review
- Translational Nanomedicine and Delivery Tools for Cardiovascular Disease Therapy and Diagnostics.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Intracranial mycotic aneurysms in pediatric patients: A systematic review.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and MR venography imaging with contrast and non-contrast techniques are widely used for pediatric vascular imaging. However, as with any MRI examination, imaging the pediatric population can be challenging because of patient motion, which sometimes requires sedation. There are multiple benefits of non-contrast MR angiographic techniques, including the ability to repeat sequences if motion is present, the decreased need for sedation, and avoidance of potential risks associated with gadolinium administration and radiation exposure. Thus, MR angiography is an attractive alternative to CT or conventional catheter-based angiography in pediatric populations. Contrast-enhanced MR angiographic techniques have the advantage of increased signal to noise. Blood pool imaging allows long imaging times that result in high-spatial-resolution imaging, and thus high-quality diagnostic images. This article outlines the technique details, indications, benefits and downsides of non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced MR angiographic techniques to assist in protocol decision-making.
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.