Observational studyEuropean radiology experimental2025
Comparison of the performance of digital variance angiography and digital subtraction angiography in children with arteriovenous malformations: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in European radiology experimental, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing contrast agent and radiation exposure is paramount for pediatric patients. Digital variance angiography (DVA) might address this need by increasing the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 132 raw iodinated contrast angiograms of 10 children (mean age: 12 years) who had endovascular procedures for arteriovenous malformations were retrospectively processed for DVA analysis. The CNR of the DVA and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) images was calculated. The visual image quality was assessed using a four-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were based on the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and one-sample t-test.
resultsThe CNR was determined and compared for 3,318 regions of interest in 132 image pairs in four anatomical regions (upper limb (UL), lower limb (LL), head and neck (HN), and chest (CH)). DVA outperformed DSA, with a median overall CNR
conclusionAlthough DVA improved CNR, it did not surpass DSA in subjective image quality, possibly due to motion artifacts and the high baseline quality of DSA images. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The enhanced CNR seen with DVA indicates a potential quality reserve that could be exploited to safely reduce contrast agent dose and radiation risks in pediatric patients, who are more susceptible to the long-term effects of radiation. KEY POINTS: In previous studies, DVA was superior to DSA due to a higher CNR and better image quality. However, no evidence was available regarding pediatric endovascular procedures. While DVA exhibited a marked advantage in terms of the CNR, it was unable to surpass DSA in terms of visual assessment. The enhanced CNR seen with DVA indicates a potential quality reserve that could be exploited to safely reduce contrast agent dose and radiation risks in pediatric patients.
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.