ArticleJornal vascular brasileiro2024
Comparison between vascular Doppler ultrasound and contrast exams in chronic peripheral arterial disease.
Article in Jornal vascular brasileiro, 2024. 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.
- Incidence and risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy after angioplasty: an observational retrospective study.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vascular Doppler ultrasound (DUS) has evolved over recent years because of improvements in the technology involved in the acquisition and processing of sound and image data. The method is an excellent option for use in diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease considering its availability, low cost, and absence of harmful effects. The breakdown of logistics supply chains caused by the COVID-19 pandemic caused worldwide shortages of iodinated contrast, highlighting the need to validate alternative diagnostic methods. Objective: To use DUS for decision-making when choosing between by-pass and endovascular surgery for femoropopliteal arterial disease and compare the results to those of iodinated contrast exams. Methods: We compared DUS with examinations using contrast for identification of stenoses/occlusions and indication of surgical treatment (by-pass vs. endovascular). In the first phase of the study the results were merely compared, DUS vs. angiotomography. Then, in the second phase, the vascular ultrasound results were used for screening between by-pass and endovascular treatment, comparing DUS with angiotomography in cases scheduled for by-pass and with arteriography in endovascular patients. Results: In phase 1, the sensitivity of DUS compared to CT angiography was 100% for the SFA territory. When considering solely the choice of bypass vs. endovascular treatment, the results showed 100% agreement for phase 1 and 94% for phase 2. Conclusion: Notwithstanding the sample size, the study fulfilled its objective of demonstrating the reliability of DUS for indicating the treatment choice between by-pass and endovascular surgery.
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.