Key result
Combined magnetic resonance angiographic techniques demonstrated 86% sensitivity and 92% specificity for diagnosing clinically significant carotid stenosis compared to invasive angiography.
Why the study?
Does combined magnetic resonance angiography accurately diagnose clinically significant carotid stenosis compared to invasive carotid angiography in patients suspected to have carotid artery disease?
Population
31 patients (60 carotid artery bifurcations) suspected to have carotid artery disease
Comparison
Combined two-dimensional, phase-sensitive and a… vs Invasive carotid angiography
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Combined magnetic resonance angiographic techniques demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing clinically significant carotid stenosis, though they remain slightly inferior to invasive angiography.
Observational (n=31)
Does combined magnetic resonance angiography accurately diagnose clinically significant carotid stenosis compared to invasive carotid angiography in patients suspected to have carotid artery disease?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 86%, Specificity 92%
Combined magnetic resonance angiographic techniques demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing clinically significant carotid stenosis, though they remain slightly inferior to invasive angiography.
Kido et al. (1991) conducted an observational in Carotid artery disease (n=31). Combined two-dimensional, phase-sensitive and gradient-echo magnetic resonance angiography vs. Invasive carotid angiography was evaluated on Diagnosis of clinically significant carotid stenosis (Sensitivity 86%, Specificity 92%). Combined magnetic resonance angiographic techniques demonstrated 86% sensitivity and 92% specificity for diagnosing clinically significant carotid stenosis compared to invasive angiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: