Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 219

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Peripheral Arterial Disease: Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Performance of MR Angiography

Nelemans, Patricia J., Leiner, Tim, de Vet, Henrica C. W., van Engelshoven, Joseph M. A.·2000·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To summarize the overall diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance (MR) angiography in the evaluation of peripheral arteriosclerotic occlusive disease and to identify the most important sources of variation in diagnostic accuracy between studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search strategy in MEDLINE and citation tracking were used to identify relevant English-language articles published since 1991. Each article was critically appraised for examination, patient, and study design characteristics. The accuracy data from different studies were analyzed by constructing summary receiver operating characteristic curves; multiple linear regression was used to examine the variation between study results. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included. There was much heterogeneity in the study results, which could not be explained as differences in the threshold for a positive result. About half of the variation was due to the type of MR angiographic examination and the extent of image evaluation. The relative diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for three-dimensional (3D) gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography compared with two-dimensional (2D) time-of-flight MR angiography was 7.46 (95% CI: 2.48, 22.20). The relative DOR for review of transverse source images or multiplanar reformations in addition to maximum intensity projections (MIPs) compared with the use of only MIPs for image evaluation was 4.53 (95% CI: 1.46, 13.87). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of 3D gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography is superior to that of 2D time-of-flight MR angiography. Also, the review of transverse source images or use of additional postprocessing techniques, such as multiplanar reformation, results in significantly better diagnostic performance.

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 · 10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc11105

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 219

Metadata

Authors
Nelemans, P. J., Leiner, T., de Vet, H. C. W., & van Engelshoven, J. M. A.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2000-10
Volume
217
Issue
1
Pages
105-114
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2034127219
Cited by
219
References
0
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Peripheral Arterial Disease: Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Performance of MR Angiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc11105
The paper
Nelemans, P. J., Leiner, T., de Vet, H. C. W., & van Engelshoven, J. M. A. (2000). Peripheral Arterial Disease: Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Performance of MR Angiography. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc11105

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.