ArticlePloS one2014
Magnetic resonance evaluation of multiple myeloma at 3.0 Tesla: how do bone marrow plasma cell percentage and selection of protocols affect lesion conspicuity?
Article in PloS one, 2014. 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.
- Clinical evaluation of deep learning accelerated lumbar T2-weighted and fat-suppressed MRI sequences.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic utility of whole body Dixon MRI in multiple myeloma: A multi-reader study.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare various pulse sequences in terms of percent contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for detection of focal multiple myeloma lesions and to assess the dependence of lesion conspicuity on the bone marrow plasma cell percent (BMPC%). MATERIALS AND
methodsSagittal T1-weighted FSE, fat-suppressed T2-weighted FSE (FS- T2 FSE), fast STIR and iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging of the lumbar spine were performed (n = 45). Bone marrow (BM)-focal myeloma lesion percent contrast and CNR were calculated. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were obtained between percent contrast, CNR and BMPC%. Percent contrasts and CNRs were compared among the three imaging sequences.
resultsBM-focal lesion percent contrasts, CNRs and BMPC% showed significant negative correlations in the three fat-suppression techniques. Percent contrast and CNRs were significantly higher for FS- T2 FSE than for STIR (P<0.01, P<0.05, respectively), but no significant differences were found among the three fat-suppression methods in the low tumor load BM group.
conclusionThe higher BMPC% was within BM, the less conspicuous the focal lesion was on fat-suppressed MRI. The most effective protocol for detecting focal lesions was FS- T2 FSE. In the high tumor load BM group, no significant differences in lesion conspicuity were identified among the three fat-suppression techniques.
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.