Key result
Radionuclide venography demonstrated an overall diagnostic accuracy of 95% compared to contrast phlebography for detecting deep vein thrombosis.
Why the study?
Does radionuclide venography accurately diagnose deep vein thrombosis compared to contrast phlebography?
Population
103 patients evaluated for deep vein thrombosis
Comparison
Radionuclide venography (RNV) vs Contrast phlebography
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May support radionuclide venography for DVT evaluation; leaves open prospective validation against contemporary standards.
Observational (n=103)
Does radionuclide venography accurately diagnose deep vein thrombosis compared to contrast phlebography?
Radionuclide venography is a highly accurate (95%) alternative to contrast phlebography for diagnosing deep vein thrombosis and can simultaneously detect clinically unsuspected pulmonary emboli.
Ennis et al. (1977) conducted an observational in Deep vein thrombosis (n=103). Radionuclide venography (RNV) vs. Contrast phlebography was evaluated on Overall accuracy in diagnosis. Radionuclide venography demonstrated an overall diagnostic accuracy of 95% compared to contrast phlebography for detecting deep vein thrombosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: