. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jun 8.

Published in final edited form as: Circulation. 2010 May 17;121(22):2462–2508. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181d44a8f

Table 8.

Meta-Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography Versus Noncontrast 2D Magnetic Resonance Angiography for Assessment of Peripheral Arterial Disease

Meta-Analysis Study (Year)	Technique	No. of Patients and Studies^*	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Diagnostic Odds Ratio
Nelemans et al⁷¹ (2000)	CE-MRA	2 patients/10 studies	92–100	91–99	7.5
gold standard = DSA	2D TOF MRA	344 patients/13 studies	64–100	68–96	4.5
Koelemay et al⁷⁰ (2001)	CE-MRA^†	495 patients/17 studies	83–100	64–100	2.8
gold standard = DSA	2D TOF or 2D proximal compression MRA	679 patients/20 studies	69–100	23–100	1.0

2D indicates 2-dimensional; CE-MRA, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography; DSA, digital subtraction angiography; MRA, magnetic resonance angiography; and TOF, time of flight.

In some studies, patients underwent both CE-MRA and noncontrast 2D MRA.

^†

Single study on 20 subjects evaluated 2D CE-MRA.