2001
DOI: 10.1590/s0004-282x2001000500002 View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
|

Abstract: -Objective: We compare duplex scan (DS) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) with digital angiography (DGA) in respect to accuracy in measuring internal carotid artery (IC) stenosis in symptomatic patients. Method: Ten symptomatic patients with IC stenosis greater than 70% previously diagnosed by DS were submitted to another DS and to both MRA and DGA. Both ICs from each patient (total 20 ICs) were evaluated by physicians blinded for the results of other tests. DS and MRA were compared with DGA, using the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance
Select...
2
1
1
1
1
8
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Negative predictive value (95% CI) was 100% (74.7% to 100%) and 100% (69.9% to 100%) respectively. 2 Because of our small sample size, confidence intervals were large, but results are similar to those found in the meta-analysis by Debrey et al 1 A previous meta-analysis 4 found different results with 82% to 86% sensitivity and 98% specificity for duplex scan and MRA cases with total ICA occlusion. In stenosis Ն70%, sensitivity ranged from 83% to 86% and specificity ranged from 89% to 94%.…”
Section: Accuracy Of Magnetic Resonance Angiography For Internal Carosupporting
See 1 more Smart Citation
Create an account to read the remaining citation statements from this report. You will also get access to:
  • Search over 1b+ citation statments to see what is being said about any topic in the research literature
  • Advanced Search to find publications that support or contrast your research
  • Citation reports and visualizations to easily see what publications are saying about each other
  • Browser extension to see Smart Citations wherever you read research
  • Dashboards to evaluate and keep track of groups of publications
  • Alerts to stay on top of citations as they happen
  • Automated reference checks to make sure you are citing reliable research in your manuscripts
  • 14 day free preview of our premium features.

Trusted by researchers and organizations around the world

Over 100,000 students researchers, and industry experts at use scite

See what students are saying

rupbmjkragerfmgwileyiopcupepmcmbcthiemesagefrontiersapsiucrarxivemeralduhksmucshluniversity-of-gavle
“…Negative predictive value (95% CI) was 100% (74.7% to 100%) and 100% (69.9% to 100%) respectively. 2 Because of our small sample size, confidence intervals were large, but results are similar to those found in the meta-analysis by Debrey et al 1 A previous meta-analysis 4 found different results with 82% to 86% sensitivity and 98% specificity for duplex scan and MRA cases with total ICA occlusion. In stenosis Ն70%, sensitivity ranged from 83% to 86% and specificity ranged from 89% to 94%.…”
Section: Accuracy Of Magnetic Resonance Angiography For Internal Carosupporting
“…2 In conclusion, combining duplex scan and MRA results may prove more dependable than using MRA alone; when both methods are concordant, they may safely substitute invasive DGA.…”
Section: Accuracy Of Magnetic Resonance Angiography For Internal Caromentioning
“…Their clinical presentation and course have been fully described 13 . Table 2 shows the main numeric values obtained.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
“…Using material generated in another study 13 , the authors made a direct comparison between SVI of an experienced neuro-radiologist (.SA) and a well established method to measure IC stenosis the NASCET method 5 . There was an excellent correlation between the obtained numeric values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
See 1 more Smart Citation