ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Value of multi-modal ultrasound in evaluation of the accessory renal artery.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The evaluation of the accessory renal artery (ARA) holds clinical significance in the effective intervention of resistant hypertension and renal vascular-related surgical procedures. Multi-modal ultrasound is a non-invasive, secure, and real-time imaging modality, especially useful in patients with renal impairment. Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the value of multi-modal ultrasound in the assessment of the ARA. This study aimed to explore the diagnostic performances of multi-modal ultrasound in the assessment of the ARA. Methods: A retrospective data collection (clinical and imaging information) was conducted on patients who underwent renal artery conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations between August 2019 and November 2023 in Beijing Hospital. A total of 73 patients with a unilateral or bilateral ARA based on their computed tomography angiography (CTA) results were included. Compared with CTA results, the accuracy of multi-modal ultrasound for the assessment of the ARA was evaluated, and underlying reasons for misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis were analyzed. Results: Among the 73 patients (144 kidneys), CTA identified 85 ARAs, whereas multi-modal ultrasound detected 70 ARAs. Although multi-modal ultrasound failed to detect 15 ARAs, it did not result in any false-positive diagnoses. When CTA did not detect any ARAs in a kidney, multi-modal ultrasound also did not find any ARA. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of multi-modal ultrasound in diagnosing ARA were calculated as 82.4%, 100%, 100%, 81.0%, and 90.9%, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.906 (P<0.001). The consistency analysis yielded a kappa value of 0.806 (P<0.01). Comparisons were conducted between patients with detected ARAs and those with missed ARAs. The age and body mass index (BMI) between the two groups were found to be statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusions: Multi-modal ultrasound, characterized by its non-invasive, safe, and reproducible nature, demonstrates a high level of diagnostic accuracy in detecting the ARA. Thus, multi-modal ultrasound holds promise as a valuable tool for evaluating the ARA.
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.