ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Diagnostic Tool for Ilio-Femoro-Caval Deep Venous Thrombosis.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. 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, 3 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to test the accuracy of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based method to detect and characterise deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in the ilio-femoro-caval veins. Patients with verified DVT in the lower extremities with extension of the thrombi to the iliac veins, who were suitable for catheter-based venous thrombolysis, were included in this study. Before the intervention, magnetic resonance venography (MRV) was performed, and the ilio-femoro-caval veins were independently evaluated for normal appearance, stenosis, and occlusion by two single-blinded observers. The same procedure was used to evaluate digital subtraction phlebography (DSP), considered to be the gold standard, which made it possible to compare the results. A total of 123 patients were included for MRV and DSP, resulting in 246 image sets to be analysed. In total, 496 segments were analysed for occlusion, stenosis, or normal appearance. The highest sensitivity compared occlusion with either normal or stenosis (0.98) in MRV, while the lowest was found between stenosis and normal (0.84). Specificity varied from 0.59 (stenosis >< occlusion) to 0.94 (occlusion >< normal). The Kappa statistic was calculated as a measure of inter-observer agreement. The kappa value for MRV was 0.91 and for DSP, 0.80. In conclusion, MRV represents a sensitive method to analyse DVT in the pelvis veins with advantages such as no radiation and contrast and the possibility to investigate the anatomical relationship in the area.
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.