Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23971482›Full record

ReviewAJR. American journal of roentgenology2013

Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked clinical questions.

Marco Essig, Thanh Binh Nguyen, Mark S Shiroishi, Marc Saake, James M Provenzale, David S Enterline, Nicoletta Anzalone, Arnd Dörfler, Àlex Rovira, Max Wintermark and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Tumefactive demyelination in a patient with relapsing-remitting MS on ocrelizumab.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2019
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Marco EssigDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Maximiliansplatz 1, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. marco.essig@uk-erlangen.de
Thanh Binh Nguyen
Mark S Shiroishi
Marc Saake
James M Provenzale
David S Enterline
Nicoletta Anzalone
Arnd Dörfler
Àlex Rovira
Max Wintermark
Meng Law

Funding

LOS ANGELES BASIN CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR031986 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI BUCHANAN, THOMAS A · 2010 to 2011
$21.1M
NCRR NIH HHS 5 UL1 RR031986-02NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR031986
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis article addresses questions that radiologists frequently ask when planning, performing, processing, and interpreting MRI perfusion studies in CNS imaging.

conclusionPerfusion MRI is a promising tool in assessing stroke, brain tumors, and neurodegenerative diseases. Most of the impediments that have limited the use of per-fusion MRI can be overcome to allow integration of these methods into modern neuroimaging protocols.

Indexed as

Central Nervous System DiseasesContrast MediaHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID23971482
PMCPMC3842445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.