Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24391767›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.

Judith Enders, Matthias Rief, Elke Zimmermann, Patrick Asbach, Gerd Diederichs, Christoph Wetz, Eberhard Siebert, Moritz Wagner, Bernd Hamm, Marc Dewey

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00715806 (Reduction of Claustrophobia During Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT00715806 nacompletednot on this map

Reduction of Claustrophobia During Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Randomized, Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2008 to 2009Enrolled174ConditionsClaustrophobiaArmsOpen MRI scanner., Closed MRI scanner.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Judith EndersDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Matthias RiefDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Elke ZimmermannDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Patrick AsbachDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Gerd DiederichsDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Christoph WetzDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Eberhard SiebertDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Moritz WagnerDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Bernd HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Marc DeweyDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of the present study was to compare the image quality of spinal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed on a high-field horizontal open versus a short-bore MR scanner in a randomized controlled study setup.

methodsAltogether, 93 (80% women, mean age 53) consecutive patients underwent spine imaging after random assignement to a 1-T horizontal open MR scanner with a vertical magnetic field or a 1.5-T short-bore MR scanner. This patient subset was part of a larger cohort. Image quality was assessed by determining qualitative parameters, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR), and quantitative contour sharpness.

resultsThe image quality parameters were higher for short-bore MR imaging. Regarding all sequences, the relative differences were 39% for the mean overall qualitative image quality, 53% for the mean SNR values, and 34-37% for the quantitative contour sharpness (P<0.0001). The CNR values were also higher for images obtained with the short-bore MR scanner. No sequence was of very poor (nondiagnostic) image quality. Scanning times were significantly longer for examinations performed on the open MR scanner (mean: 32±22 min versus 20±9 min; P<0.0001).

conclusionsIn this randomized controlled comparison of spinal MR imaging with an open versus a short-bore scanner, short-bore MR imaging revealed considerably higher image quality with shorter scanning times.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00715806.

Indexed as

AdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePhobic DisordersProspective StudiesSpine

Identifiers

PMID24391767
PMCPMC3877023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.