Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Imaging Modalities for Renal Artery Stenosis in Suspected Renovascular Hypertension: Prospective Intraindividual Comparison of Color Doppler US, CT Angiography, GD-Enhanced MR Angiography, and Digital Substraction Angiography

Open access
Rountas, C., Vlychou, M., Vassiou, K., Liakopoulos, V., Kapsalaki, E., Koukoulis, G., Fezoulidis, I.V., Stefanidis, I.·2007·Renal Failure

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Color Doppler US, CT Angiography (CTA), and GD-enhanced MR Angiography (MRA) compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for the detection of renal artery stenosis in patients with clinically suspected renovascular hypertension. Fifty-eight patients with suspected renovascular hypertension were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent Color Doppler US, CTA and GD-enhanced MRA. DSA was the gold standard method for the number of renal arteries, existence and degree of stenosis, or evidence of fibromuscular dysplasia. DSA depicted 132 renal arteries, 16 stenoses, and 4 arteries with fibromuscular dysplasia. Color Doppler US failed to detect 1 main and 14 polar arteries. CTA depicted all main renal arteries and 7/16 polar arteries, but failed to detect stenosis in two accessory vessels. Likewise, MRA did not detect stenotic accessory renal arteries, depicted 9/16 polar renal arteries, but missed two main renal arteries. All methods depicted the four main renal arteries with fibromuscular dysplasia. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive accuracy were 75%, 89.6%, 60% and 94.6%, respectively, for color Doppler US; 94%, 93%, 71%, and 99%, respectively, for CTA; and 90%, 94.1%, 75%, and 98%, respectively, for GD-enhanced MRA. CTA and GD-enhanced MRA have comparable and satisfactory results with respect to the negative predictive accuracy of the suspected renal artery stenosis. The concept of an imaging algorithm including US as screening test when appropriate and CTA or MRA as the second step-procedure is suggested. Therefore, DSA may be reserved for cases with major discrepancies or therapeutic interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08860220601166305

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Rountas, C., Vlychou, M., Vassiou, K., Liakopoulos, V., Kapsalaki, E., Koukoulis, G., Fezoulidis, I. V., & Stefanidis, I.
Venue
Renal Failure
Published
2007-01-01
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
295-302
ISSN
  • 0886-022X (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-6049
OpenAlex
W2162017536
Cited by
187
References
0
FWCI
7.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Imaging Modalities for Renal Artery Stenosis in Suspected Renovascular Hypertension: Prospective Intraindividual Comparison of Color Doppler US, CT Angiography, GD-Enhanced MR Angiography, and Digital Substraction Angiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08860220601166305
The paper
Rountas, C., Vlychou, M., Vassiou, K., Liakopoulos, V., Kapsalaki, E., Koukoulis, G., Fezoulidis, I. V., & Stefanidis, I. (2007). Imaging Modalities for Renal Artery Stenosis in Suspected Renovascular Hypertension: Prospective Intraindividual Comparison of Color Doppler US, CT Angiography, GD-Enhanced MR Angiography, and Digital Substraction Angiography. Renal Failure. https://doi.org/10.1080/08860220601166305

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.