ArticleEuropean radiology2013
Two- versus three-dimensional dual gradient-echo MRI of the liver: a technical comparison.
Article in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Repeatability of two-dimensional chemical shift imaging multivoxel proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy for measuring human cerebral choline-containing compounds.World journal of psychiatry · 2018Article
- Age- and Gender Dependent Liver Fat Content in a Healthy Normal BMI Population as Quantified by Fat-Water Separating DIXON MR Imaging.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare 2D spoiled dual gradient-echo (SPGR-DE) and 3D SPGR-DE with fat and water separation for the assessment of focal and diffuse fatty infiltration of the liver.
methodsA total of 227 consecutive patients (141 men; 56 ± 14 years) underwent clinically indicated liver MRI at 1.5 T including multiple-breath-hold 2D SPGR-DE and single-breath-hold 3D SPGR-DE with automatic reconstruction of fat-only images. Two readers assessed the image quality and number of fat-containing liver lesions on 2D and 3D in- and opposed-phase (IP/OP) images. Liver fat content (LFC) was quantified in 138 patients without chronic liver disease from 2D, 3D IP/OP, and 3D fat-only images.
resultsMean durations of 3D and 2D SPGR-DE acquisitions were 23.7 ± 2.9 and 97.2 ± 9.1 s respectively. The quality of all 2D and 3D images was rated diagnostically. Three-dimensional SPGR-DE revealed significantly more breathing artefacts resulting in lower image quality (P < 0.001); 2D and 3D IP/OP showed a similar detection rate of fat-containing lesions (P = 0.334) and similar LFC estimations (mean: +0.4 %; P = 0.048). LFC estimations based on 3D fat-only images showed significantly higher values (mean: 2.7 % + 3.5 %) than those from 2D and 3D IP/OP images (P < 0.001).
conclusionThree dimensional SPGR-DE performs as well as 2D SPGR-DE for the assessment of focal and diffuse fatty infiltration of liver parenchyma. The 3D SPGR-DE sequence used was quicker but more susceptible to breathing artefacts. Significantly higher LFC values are derived from 3D fat-only images than from 2D or 3D IP/OP images.
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.