FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2071016288> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2071016288 endingPage "1262" @default.
• W2071016288 startingPage "1255" @default.
• W2071016288 abstract "ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to investigate the effects of substituting multi-station total outflow contrast medium–enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) for color duplex ultrasound (US) scanning on treatment planning in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected or known peripheral arterial occlusive disease.Patients and methodsOne hundred consecutive patients referred because of suspected or proved peripheral arterial occlusive disease to a University Hospital underwent both aortoiliac duplex US scanning and multi-station total outflow CE-MRA. For 73 of these patients (57% men; mean age, 62 years) treatment or treatment plans could be retraced. Eighteen patients also underwent femoro-popliteal duplex US scanning. Three experienced vascular surgeons retrospectively formulated two sets of treatment plans based on standardized clinical parameters and either duplex US scanning or CE-MRA. The main outcome measure was proportion of patients for whom the treatment plan matched actual treatment without additional use of intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. Actual treatment, based on all available information, including results of duplex US scanning, CE-MRA, and any other diagnostic tests, served as the standard of reference.ResultsDuplex US scanning provided enough information for treatment planning in 46, 45, and 53 patients versus 67, 68, and 66 patients when CE-MRA was used (surgeons 1, 2, and 3, respectively; surgeons 1 and 2, P < .001; surgeon 3, P = .007). Treatment plans based on duplex US scanning exactly matched actual treatment in 37 of 73 patients (51%; surgeon 1), 36 of 73 patients (49%; surgeon 2), and 46 of 73 patients (63%; surgeon 3). Treatment plans based on CE-MRA exactly matched actual treatment in 56 of 73 patients (77%; surgeon 1), 55 of 73 patients (75%; surgeon 2), and 51 of 73 patients (70%; surgeon 3). Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of duplex US scanning as measures of ability to discriminate between surgical and nonsurgical treatment were 0 of 0 (undefined) and 43 of 46 (93%), 1 of 2 (50%) and 40 of 43 (93%), and 5 of 5 (100%) and 44 of 48 (92%) for surgeons 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For CE-MRA, positive and negative predictive values were 11 of 13 (85%) and 50 of 54 (93%), 10 of 12 (83%) and 51 of 56 (91%), and 8 of 13 (62%) and 48 of 53 (91%), respectively, for surgeons 1, 2, and 3.ConclusionCompared with aorto-iliac and femoro-popliteal duplex US scanning, multi-station total outflow CE-MRA is more effective for treatment planning in most patients with known or suspected peripheral arterial occlusive disease." @default.
• W2071016288 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5012968708 @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5018369089 @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5024210370 @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5032541644 @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5053071529 @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5063840601 @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5069028114 @default.
• W2071016288 creator A5087732025 @default.
• W2071016288 date "2003-06-01" @default.
• W2071016288 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2071016288 title "Comparison of treatment plans for peripheral arterial disease made with multi-station contrast medium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and duplex ultrasound scanning" @default.
• W2071016288 cites W1968398749 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W1974762313 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2002502676 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2029839876 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2030677579 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2034127219 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2043517681 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2044010826 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2060449736 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2066992825 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2088671884 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2097140346 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2106847133 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2132067973 @default.
• W2071016288 cites W2143900444 @default.
• W2071016288 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0741-5214(02)75451-7" @default.
• W2071016288 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12764273" @default.
• W2071016288 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2071016288 type Work @default.
• W2071016288 sameAs 2071016288 @default.
• W2071016288 citedByCount "34" @default.
• W2071016288 countsByYear W20710162882012 @default.
• W2071016288 countsByYear W20710162882014 @default.
• W2071016288 countsByYear W20710162882017 @default.
• W2071016288 countsByYear W20710162882021 @default.
• W2071016288 countsByYear W20710162882022 @default.
• W2071016288 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5012968708 @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5018369089 @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5024210370 @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5032541644 @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5053071529 @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5063840601 @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5069028114 @default.
• W2071016288 hasAuthorship W2071016288A5087732025 @default.
• W2071016288 hasBestOaLocation W20710162881 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C143409427 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C143753070 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2777466421 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2778212899 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2778286760 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2780007028 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2780643987 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2781038377 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2909529769 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C3018348675 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C46762472 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C552990157 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConcept C99611785 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C126322002 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C126838900 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C141071460 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C143409427 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C143753070 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2777466421 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2778212899 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2778286760 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2780007028 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2780643987 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2781038377 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2909529769 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C2989005 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C3018348675 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C46762472 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C54355233 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C552990157 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C71924100 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C86803240 @default.
• W2071016288 hasConceptScore W2071016288C99611785 @default.
• W2071016288 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2071016288 hasLocation W20710162881 @default.
• W2071016288 hasLocation W20710162882 @default.
• W2071016288 hasOpenAccess W2071016288 @default.
• W2071016288 hasPrimaryLocation W20710162881 @default.
• W2071016288 hasRelatedWork W1487561077 @default.
• W2071016288 hasRelatedWork W1970152425 @default.
• W2071016288 hasRelatedWork W2037008899 @default.
• W2071016288 hasRelatedWork W2054898950 @default.

• next