SynthesisEuropean radiology2012
A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Its Clinical Correlation in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of cerebrovascular reactivity in cerebral small vessel disease: A systematic review.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2016Pooled it
- Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) findings following pediatric non-penetrating TBI: a meta-analysis.Developmental neuropsychology · 2014Pooled it
- MR imaging of the fetal brain at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths: comparing specific absorption rate (SAR) and image quality.Journal of perinatal medicine · 2015Trial
- Clinical and MRI factors influencing interobserver delineation variability of brain metastases before stereotactic radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- How alexithymia shapes functional networks: Insights from a general population study.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Children with Papilledema.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 2026Article
- Recommendations on the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents in the diagnosis and monitoring of common adult intracranial tumours.European radiology · 2025Review
- Assessment of the available evidence for the use of 7-Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, with comparison to 3-T and 1.5-T MRI: A systematic scoping review.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Assessing the Volume of the Head of the Mandibular Condyle Using 3T-MRI-A Preliminary Trial.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- ENIGMA's simple seven: Recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of resting-state fMRI in traumatic brain injury.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2024Review
- 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a single centre experience.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Leptomeningeal enhancement of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated encephalitis: uncovering novel markers on contrast-enhanced fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Article
- Impact of deep learning reconstruction on intracranial 1.5 T magnetic resonance angiography.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Article
- 3 T: the good, the bad and the ugly.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Brain atrophy pattern in patients with mild cognitive impairment: MRI study.Translational neuroscience · 2022Article
- Perivascular Spaces, Glymphatic System and MR.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- Comparison of structural MRI brain measures between 1.5 and 3 T: Data from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Response to Letter to Editor.Neuro-oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMRI at 3 T is said to be more accurate than 1.5 T MR, but costs and other practical differences mean that it is unclear which to use.
methodsWe systematically reviewed studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 3 T with 1.5 T. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources from 1 January 2000 to 22 October 2010 for studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 1.5 and 3 T in human neuroimaging. We extracted data on methodology, quality criteria, technical factors, subjects, signal-to-noise, diagnostic accuracy and errors according to QUADAS and STARD criteria.
resultsAmongst 150 studies (4,500 subjects), most were tiny, compared old 1.5 T with new 3 T technology, and only 22 (15 %) described diagnostic accuracy. The 3 T images were often described as "crisper", but we found little evidence of improved diagnosis. Improvements were limited to research applications [functional MRI (fMRI), spectroscopy, automated lesion detection]. Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio was not confirmed, mostly being 25 %. Artefacts were worse and acquisitions took slightly longer at 3 T.
conclusionObjective evidence to guide MRI purchasing decisions and routine diagnostic use is lacking. Rigorous evaluation accuracy and practicalities of diagnostic imaging technologies should be the routine, as for pharmacological interventions, to improve effectiveness of healthcare. KEY POINTS : • Higher field strength MRI may improve image quality and diagnostic accuracy. • There are few direct comparisons of 1.5 and 3 T MRI. • Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio in practice was only 25 %. • Objective evidence of improved routine clinical diagnosis is lacking. • Other aspects of technology improved images more than field strength.
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.