ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2010
Comparison of myocardial perfusion estimates from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with four quantitative analysis methods.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance expert consensus statement on quantitative myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceGuideline
- The effect of obesity on regadenoson-induced myocardial hyperemia: a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2012Trial
- Improving ungated steady-state cardiac perfusion using transition bands.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Arterial Input Function (AIF) Correction Using AIF Plus Tissue Inputs with a Bi-LSTM Network.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Quantitative myocardial perfusion with a hybrid 2D simultaneous multi-slice sequence.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2023Article
- Impact of Temporal Resolution and Methods for Correction on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Quantification.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Article
- Quantitative monitoring of paramagnetic contrast agents and their allocation in plant tissues via DCE-MRI.Plant methods · 2022Article
- Effect of short-term smoking & L-arginine on coronary endothelial function assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance cold pressor testing: a pilot study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Clinical Translation of Three-Dimensional Scar, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Four-Dimensional Flow, and Quantitative Perfusion in Cardiac MRI: A Comprehensive Review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Direct Comparison of Bayesian and Fermi Deconvolution Approaches for Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification:Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Whole-heart, ungated, free-breathing, cardiac-phase-resolved myocardial perfusion MRI by using Continuous Radial Interleaved simultaneous Multi-slice acquisitions at sPoiled steady-state (CRIMP).Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
- Quantitative 3D myocardial perfusion with an efficient arterial input function.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
- Automatic in-line quantitative myocardial perfusion mapping: Processing algorithm and implementation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
- The Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Cardiac Toxicity From Cancer Therapeutics.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2019Review
- Reduced global myocardial perfusion reserve in DCM and HCM patients assessed by CMR-based velocity-encoded coronary sinus flow measurements and first-pass perfusion imaging.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2018Article
- Multimodality quantitative assessments of myocardial perfusion using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance andIEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2018Article
- Estimating extraction fraction and blood flow by combining first-pass myocardial perfusion and T1 mapping results.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2017Article
- An empirical method for reducing variability and complexity of myocardial perfusion quantification by dual bolus cardiac MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2017Article
- Analysis of spatiotemporal fidelity in quantitative 3D first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017Article
- Quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow in coronary artery disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comparison of Fermi and distributed parameter modeling against invasive methods.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI has been used to quantify myocardial perfusion in recent years. Published results have varied widely, possibly depending on the method used to analyze the dynamic perfusion data. Here, four quantitative analysis methods (two-compartment modeling, Fermi function modeling, model-independent analysis, and Patlak plot analysis) were implemented and compared for quantifying myocardial perfusion. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data were acquired in 20 human subjects at rest with low-dose (0.019 +/- 0.005 mmol/kg) bolus injections of gadolinium. Fourteen of these subjects were also imaged at adenosine stress (0.021 +/- 0.005 mmol/kg). Aggregate rest perfusion estimates were not significantly different between all four analysis methods. At stress, perfusion estimates were not significantly different between two-compartment modeling, model-independent analysis, and Patlak plot analysis. Stress estimates from the Fermi model were significantly higher (approximately 20%) than the other three methods. Myocardial perfusion reserve values were not significantly different between all four methods. Model-independent analysis resulted in the lowest model curve-fit errors. When more than just the first pass of data was analyzed, perfusion estimates from two-compartment modeling and model-independent analysis did not change significantly, unlike results from Fermi function modeling.
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.