ArticlePloS one2020
Multiple reader comparison of 2D TOF, 3D TOF, and CEMRA in screening of the carotid bifurcations: Time to reconsider routine contrast use?
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simultaneous Luminal and Hemodynamic Evaluation of the Cervical Arteries Using Nonenhanced 3D Quantitative Quiescent-Interval Slice-Selective Magnetic Resonance Angiography.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMR contrast-enhanced techniques are undergoing increased scrutiny since the FDA applied a warning for gadolinium-based MR contrast agents due to gadolinium deposition within multiple organ systems. While CE-MRA provides excellent image quality, is it required in a screening carotid study? This study compares 2D TOF and 3D TOF MRA vs. CE-MRA in defining carotid stenosis in a large clinical patient population, and with multiple readers with varying experience. MATERIALS AND
methods200 consecutive patients had their carotid bifurcations evaluated with 2D TOF, 3D TOF and CE-MRA sequences by 6 board-certified neuroradiologists. Stenosis and quality of examinations were defined for each study. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using two-way random effects intraclass correlation coefficients. Intra-reader reliability was computed via weighted Cohen's κ. Weighted Cohen's κ were also computed to assess agreement in stenosis ratings between enhanced images and unenhanced images.
resultsAgreement between unenhanced and enhanced ratings was substantial with a pooled weighted κ of 0.733 (0.628-0.811). For 5 of the 6 readers, the combination of unenhanced 2D TOF and 3D TOF showed better agreement with contrast-enhanced than either 2D TOF or 3D TOF alone. Intra-reader reliability was substantial.
conclusionsThe combination of 2D TOF and 3D TOF MRA showed substantial agreement with CE-MRA regarding degree of carotid stenosis in this large outpatient population across multiple readers of varying experience. Given the scrutiny that GBCA are undergoing due to concerns regarding CNS and soft tissue deposition, it seems prudent to reserve CE-MRA for cases which are not satisfactorily answered by the nonenhanced study or other noninvasive examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.