Evidence mapPaperPMID 16795076Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2006

Determination of cardiac volumes and mass with FLASH and SSFP cine sequences at 1.5 vs. 3 Tesla: a validation study.

Lucy E Hudsmith, Steffen E Petersen, Damian J Tyler, Jane M Francis, Adrian S H Cheng, Kieran Clarke, Joseph B Selvanayagam, Matthew D Robson, Stefan Neubauer

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05367063 phase4completedstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Canagliflozin Attenuates CMR-Quantified Myocardial Fibrosis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at High Cardiovascular Risk

Ran2022Enrolled45Registered outcomes3Posted comparisons0ConditionsCardiovascular Risk, Type 2 DiabetesArmsCanagliflozin 100mg or Sitagliptin 100mg
Open the trial in the graph
NCT01889992 phase1terminatednot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

Cardiac Allograft Remodeling and Effects of Sirolimus on Its Progression

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of NebraskaRan2013 to 2018Enrolled42ConditionsCardiac Hypertrophy, ImmunosuppressionArmsCardiac MRI, Coronary angiography with IVUS, Cardiac Allograft Remodeling, M-TOR Immunosuppression, Cardiac Biopsy C4D stain
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance normal values in children for biventricular wall thickness and mass.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Male sex adversely affects the phenotypic expression of diabetic heart disease.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucy E HudsmithUniversity of Oxford Center for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Steffen E Petersen
Damian J Tyler
Jane M Francis
Adrian S H Cheng
Kieran Clarke
Joseph B Selvanayagam
Matthew D Robson
Stefan Neubauer
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation PS/02/002/14893Medical Research Council G0400444Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare cardiac cine MR imaging using steady state free precession (SSFP) and fast low angle shot (FLASH) techniques at 1.5 and 3 T, and to establish their variabilities and reproducibilities for cardiac volume and mass determination in volunteers. To assess the feasibility of SSFP imaging in patients at 3 T and to determine comparability to volume data acquired at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND

methodsTen healthy volunteers underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using SSFP and segmented gradient-echo FLASH, using both a 1.5 and a 3 T MR system on the same day. Ten patients with impaired left ventricular (LV) function were also studied at both field strengths with SSFP.

resultsFor both SSFP and FLASH, field strength had no effect on the quantification of LV and right ventricular (RV) volumes, mass, or function (P > or = 0.05 for field strength for all parameters). At both 1.5 and 3 T, SSFP yielded smaller LV mass (e.g., at 3 T 109 +/- 30 g vs. 142 +/- 37 g; P = 0.011) and larger LV volume (e.g., at 3 T end-diastolic volume 149 +/- 37 mL vs. 133 +/- 31 mL at 5 T; P = 0.041) measurements than FLASH. In patients with reduced LV function, all volume and mass measurements were again similar for SSFP sequences at 1.5 vs. 3 T. In volunteers and patients, measurement variabilities for LV parameters were small for both field strength and sequences, ranging between 3.7% and 10.7% for mass.

conclusionCompared to 1.5 T, cardiac cine MR imaging at 3 T, using either FLASH or SSFP sequences, is feasible and highly reproducible. Field strength does not have an influence on quantification of cardiac volume or mass, but the systematic overestimation of LV mass and underestimation of LV volume by FLASH compared to SSFP is present at both 1.5 and 3 T. Normal values for cardiac volumes and mass established at 1.5 T can be applied to scans obtained at 3 T.

Indexed as

AdultCardiac VolumeCase-Control StudiesFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineMaleOrgan SizeReproducibility of ResultsVentricular Dysfunction, Left

Identifiers

PMID16795076
OpenAlexW2092954003

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.