ArticleEuropean radiology2007
Myocardial tagging with steady state free precession techniques and semi-automatic postprocessing--impact on diagnostic value.
Article in European radiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myocardial tagging by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: evolution of techniques--pulse sequences, analysis algorithms, and applications.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2011Review
- [Myocardial MR tagging: analysis of regional and global myocardial function].Der Radiologe · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to determine the diagnostic value of myocardial tagging sequences with regard to the evaluable share of the cardiac cycle. Thirty-three patients were examined at 1.5 T using tagging sequences with gradient-echo (GRE) readout, 18 patients at 1.5 T with steady-state free precession (SSFP), and 11 patients at 3 T using GRE. Two observers graded image quality and determined the share of the cardiac cycle for which postprocessing could be performed (1, optimal; 2, little interaction; 3, whole cycle assessable; 4, diastole non-assessable; 5, systole incomplete; 6, non-diagnostic). With GRE at 1.5 T, median image quality was 4.0 (95% CI 4.0-5.0), while it was significantly better with 2.0 (2.0-3.0) using the SSFP technique and similar at 3 T with 2.9 (1.7-3.5). With GRE at 1.5 T, systole could be assessed in 69% of patients, and an evaluation of the whole cardiac cycle was not possible. With the SSFP sequence at 1.5 T and GRE at 3 T, an evaluation of the whole cardiac cycle was possible in 71% and 70% of the patients, respectively, and systole was assessable in all patients. Tagging sequences with SSFP readout at 1.5 T make a semi-automatic evaluation of the whole cardiac cycle feasible in a large share of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.