ArticleJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024
Magnetic resonance lymphangiography: Establishing normal.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lymphatic Endothelial Cells in Health and Disease.MedComm · 2026Review
- Magnetic resonance lymphangiography in severe primary lymphedema of the right hand.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Lymphatic‑specific magnetic resonance lymphangiography biomarkers for grading lymphedema in animal models.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite an increased interest in visualizing the lymphatic vessels with magnetic resonance lymphangiography (MRL), little literature is available describing their appearance in nonlymphedematous individuals. To determine lymphatic abnormalities, an understanding of how healthy lymphatic vessels appear and behave needs to be established. Therefore, in this study, MRL of individuals without a history of lymphatic disease was performed.
methodsA total of 25 individuals (15 women) underwent MRL of their lower limbs using a 3.0 T Philips magnetic resonance imaging scanner (Philips Medical Systems). The first nine participants were recruited to establish the concentration of gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) to administer, with the remainder imaged before and after interdigital forefoot GBCA injections at the optimized dose. Outcomes, including lymphatic vessel diameter, tortuosity, and frequency of drainage via particular drainage routes, were recorded.
resultsHealthy lymphatic vessels following the anteromedial pathway were routinely observed in post-contrast T1-weighted images (average tortuosity, 1.09 ± 0.03), with an average of 2.16 ± 0.93 lymphatic vessels with a diameter of 2.47 ± 0.50 mm crossing the anterior ankle. In six limbs, vessels following the anterolateral pathways were observed. No vessels traversing the posterior of the legs were seen. In a subset of 10 vessels, the lymphatic signal, measured at the ankle, peaked 29 minutes, 50 seconds ± 9 minutes, 29 seconds after GBCA administration. No lymphatic vessels were observed in T2-weighted images.
conclusionsContrast-enhanced MRL reliably depicts the lymphatic vessels in the legs of healthy controls. Following interdigital contrast injection, anteromedial drainage appears dominant. Quantitative measures related to lymphatic vessel size, tortuosity, and drainage rate are readily obtainable and could be beneficial for detecting even subtle lymphatic impairment.
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.