We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Diagnostic tests for renal artery stenosis in patients suspected of having renovascular hypertension: a meta-analysis.
Annals of Internal Medicine 2001 September 19
PURPOSE: To summarize and compare the validity of computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, ultrasonography, captopril renal scintigraphy, and the captopril test for diagnosis of renal artery stenosis in patients suspected of having renovascular hypertension.
DATA SOURCES: For each diagnostic modality, published studies were identified by MEDLINE literature searches.
STUDY SELECTION: Original studies were selected if they met the following criteria: 1) suspicion of renovascular hypertension was the indication for the test; 2) intra-arterial x-ray angiography was used as the gold standard; 3) a cutoff point for a positive test result was explicitly defined; and 4) absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, true-negative, and false-positive results were available or could be derived from the presented data.
DATA EXTRACTION: A standard form was used to extract relevant data.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Data on the accuracy of the different diagnostic methods were analyzed and compared by constructing summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and by computing areas under the summary ROC curves.
RESULTS: Although accuracy varied greatly for all diagnostic modalities, summary ROC curves found that computed tomography angiography and gadolinium-enhanced, three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography performed significantly better than the other diagnostic tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography angiography and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography seem to be preferred in patients referred for evaluation of renovascular hypertension. However, because few studies of these tests have been published, further research is recommended.
DATA SOURCES: For each diagnostic modality, published studies were identified by MEDLINE literature searches.
STUDY SELECTION: Original studies were selected if they met the following criteria: 1) suspicion of renovascular hypertension was the indication for the test; 2) intra-arterial x-ray angiography was used as the gold standard; 3) a cutoff point for a positive test result was explicitly defined; and 4) absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, true-negative, and false-positive results were available or could be derived from the presented data.
DATA EXTRACTION: A standard form was used to extract relevant data.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Data on the accuracy of the different diagnostic methods were analyzed and compared by constructing summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and by computing areas under the summary ROC curves.
RESULTS: Although accuracy varied greatly for all diagnostic modalities, summary ROC curves found that computed tomography angiography and gadolinium-enhanced, three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography performed significantly better than the other diagnostic tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography angiography and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography seem to be preferred in patients referred for evaluation of renovascular hypertension. However, because few studies of these tests have been published, further research is recommended.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app