ArticleEuropean radiology2010
Multiparameter MRI assessment of normal-appearing and diseased vertebral bone marrow.
Article in European radiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications of TFrontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- ADC as a useful diagnostic tool for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral bone marrow lesions and compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2018Pooled it
- Advanced Imaging in Multiple Myeloma: New Frontiers for MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for multiple myeloma and its precursors (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smouldering myeloma).Skeletal radiology · 2022Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging of the spinal marrow: Basic understanding of the normal marrow pattern and its variant.World journal of radiology · 2015Review
- Validation of a method to differentiate arterial and venous vessels in CT perfusion data using linear combinations of quantitative time-density curve characteristics.European radiology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate spin-lattice (T1) and spin-spin (T2) relaxation times as well as apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) of the fat and water components in the vertebral bone marrow (vBM) of patients with benign and malignant lesions.
methodsForty-four patients were examined at 1.5 T: there were 24 osteoporotic vertebral fractures (15 women, 9 men; median age: 73, 48-86 years) and 20 malignant vertebral infiltrations (9 women, 11 men; median age: 60, 25-87). Relaxation times were determined separately for the water and the fat component using a saturation-recovery technique for T1 and measurements with variable echo times for T2. ADCs were determined with a diffusion-weighted (DW) echo-planar imaging (EPI) and a single-shot turbo-spin-echo (ssTSE) sequence.
resultsT1 of the water component and ADCs were significantly increased in the lesions compared with normal-appearing vBM (malignant: 1,252 vs. 828 ms, osteoporotic: 1,315 vs. 872 ms). ADCs determined with the DW-ssTSE were significantly increased compared with the DW-EPI. ADCs determined with the DW-ssTSE differed significantly between osteoporotic and malignant lesions (1.74 vs 1.35 x 10⁻³ mm²/s.
conclusionsAll parameters exhibit significant differences between normal-appearing vBM and the lesions. However, only the ADCs determined with the DW-ssTSE differed significantly between osteoporotic fractures and malignant lesions, potentially allowing for a differential diagnosis of these two entities.
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.