ArticlePloS one2020
Clinical feasibility of ultrafast intracranial vessel imaging with non-Cartesian spiral 3D time-of-flight MR angiography at 1.5T: An intra-individual comparison study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spiral time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography for intracranial vascular imaging: performance compared to conventional Cartesian angiogram.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Spiral gradient echo versus cartesian turbo spin echo imaging for sagittal contrast-enhanced fat-suppressedThe British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Spiral 2D T2-Weighted TSE Brain MR Imaging: Initial Clinical Experience.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021Article
- Acceleration of Brain TOF-MRA with Compressed Sensitivity Encoding: A Multicenter Clinical Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNon-Cartesian Spiral readout can be implemented in 3D Time-of-flight (TOF) MR angiography (MRA) with short acquisition times. In this intra-individual comparison study we evaluated the clinical feasibility of Spiral TOF MRA in comparison with compressed sensing accelerated TOF MRA at 1.5T for intracranial vessel imaging as it has yet to be determined. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-four consecutive patients with suspected intracranial vascular disease were imaged with two Spiral 3D TOFs (Spiral, 0.82x0.82x1.2 mm3, 01:32 min; Spiral 0.8, 0.8x0.8x0.8 mm3, 02:12 min) and a Compressed SENSE accelerated 3D TOF (CS 3.5, 0.82x0.82x1.2 mm3, 03:06 min) at 1.5T. Two neuroradiologists assessed qualitative (visualization of central and peripheral vessels) and quantitative image quality (Contrast Ratio, CR) and performed lesion and variation assessment for all three TOFs in each patient. After the rating process, the readers were questioned and representative cases were reinspected in a non-blinded fashion. For statistical analysis, the Friedman and Nemenyi post-hoc test, Kendall W tests, repeated measure ANOVA and weighted Cohen's Kappa tests were used.
resultsThe Spiral and Spiral 0.8 outperformed the CS 3.5 in terms of peripheral image quality (p<0.001) and performed equally well in terms of central image quality (p>0.05). The readers noted slight differences in the appearance of maximum intensity projection images. A good to high degree of interstudy agreement between the three TOFs was observed for lesion and variation assessment (W = 0.638, p<0.001 -W = 1, p<0.001). CR values did not differ significantly between the three TOFs (p = 0.534). Interreader agreement ranged from good (K = 0.638) to excellent (K = 1).
conclusionsCompared to the CS 3.5, both the Spiral and Spiral 0.8 exhibited comparable or better image quality and comparable diagnostic performance at much shorter acquisition times.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.