Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22821393›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2012

Diagnostic relevance of high field MRI in clinical neuroradiology: the advantages and challenges of driving a sports car.

Mike P Wattjes, Frederik Barkhof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mike P WattjesDepartment of Radiology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.wattjes@vumc.nl
Frederik Barkhof

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledHigh field MRI operating at 3 T is increasingly being used in the field of neuroradiology on the grounds that higher magnetic field strength should theoretically lead to a higher diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of several disease entities. This Editorial discusses the exhaustive review by Wardlaw and colleagues of research comparing 3 T MRI with 1.5 T MRI in the field of neuroradiology. Interestingly, the authors found no convincing evidence of improved image quality, diagnostic accuracy, or reduced total examination times using 3 T MRI instead of 1.5 T MRI. These findings are highly relevant since a new generation of high field MRI systems operating at 7 T has recently been introduced. KEY POINTS: • Higher magnetic field strengths do not necessarily lead to a better diagnostic accuracy. • Disadvantages of high field MR systems have to be considered in clinical practice. • Higher field strengths are needed for functional imaging, spectroscopy, etc. • Disappointingly there are few direct comparisons of 1.5 and 3 T MRI. • Whether the next high field MR generation (7 T) will improve diagnostic accuracy has to be investigated.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingEquipment DesignHumansMagnetic FieldsMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiologyReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22821393
PMCPMC3472049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.