ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2023
Quality assurance for magnetic resonance angiography of the chest in patients suspected of pulmonary embolism during iodinated contrast shortage in the emergency department setting.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: COVID-19 lockdowns resulted in a global shortage of iodinated contrast media. Therefore, alternative imaging protocols were devised to evaluate patients arriving to the emergency department (ED) with suspicion of pulmonary embolism (PE). This quality assurance (QA) aims to compare diagnostic potential between alternative magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) protocol over the gold standard computed tomography angiography (CTA) by evaluating MRA imaging quality, scanner type/imaging sequence, and any risk of misdiagnosis in patients with symptoms of PE. Material and Methods: This retrospective study compromised of 55 patients who arrived to ED and underwent MRA of the chest for suspicion of PE during the months of May to June 2022. Data regarding their chief complaints, imaging sequence, and MRA results were collected. Two fellowship-trained faculty radiologists reviewed the MRA scans of the patients and scored the quality using a Likert scale. Results: Two patients were positive for PE and 53 patients showed negative results. Regarding the scan quality issues, motion was noted in 80% of the 55 studies that we reviewed. Significant associations ( Conclusion: Patients were screened for PE with MRA as an alternative imaging tool during times of contrast shortage. Further, evaluation of MRA with CTA, side by side, in a larger patient population is required to increase the validity of our QA study.
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.