ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Duplex Ultrasound and Digital Subtraction Angiography for Assessing Tibial Vessel Disease.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Duplex ultrasonography (DUS) is readily available and often used as the first diagnostic test for patients with peripheral artery diseases (PADs). PAD is a disease that affects the general population but more commonly affects diabetics. To date, the role of DUS in the assessment of tibial vessel disease is inconclusive at best. The goal of our study is to assess the validity of DUS in characterizing the presence and severity of tibial diseases via comparison with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) findings. Methods This is a single-center retrospective cohort study analyzing three arterial segments (anterior tibial, posterior tibial, and fibular arteries) in patients who received a duplex study followed by DSA within a 30-day period. All arterial segments were graded from normal (Grade 0) to occluded (Grade 4), based on duplex interpretation and directly compared to direct visualization findings from DSA. Using statistical methods, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of DUS were determined. Results A total of 171 tibial vessel segments from 57 enrolled subjects with critical limb ischemia symptoms were analyzed in this study. The agreement between both modalities was poor (Kappa=0.19, p < 0.05), with DUS demonstrating a significant underestimation of vessel pathologies. This is also reflected by the overall sub-optimal sensitivity (23%), specificity (84%), PPV (69%), and NPV (41%) in DUS when compared to DSA results as the gold standard. Conclusion Significant disagreements were noted in this study between DUS and DSA findings, primarily significant underestimation of tibial vessel disease by the DUS when compared with the DSA. Caution is advised in the clinical application of DUS in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) symptoms and multi-segment tibial vessels due to its demonstrated limitations in this 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.