ArticleJournal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association2014
Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for identification and quantification of intraventricular hemorrhage.
Article in Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Full-body MR imaging: a retrospective study on a novel diagnostic approach for children sustaining high-energy trauma.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Trial
- Multi-plane vision transformer for hemorrhage classification using axial and sagittal MRI data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Yield of MRI in patients with spontaneous deep intracerebral hemorrhage.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
- Neuro-imaging in intracerebral hemorrhage: updates and knowledge gaps.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Hemorrhage Evaluation and Detector System for Underserved Populations: HEADS-UP.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Article
- Acute pancreatitis with gradient echo T2*-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2016Article
- Intratracheal exposure of common marmosets to MERS-CoV Jordan-n3/2012 or MERS-CoV EMC/2012 isolates does not result in lethal disease.Virology · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) may be difficult to detect especially when in small amounts and may affect outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) vs computed tomography (CT) for the identification and quantification of IVH.
methodsPatients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage were enrolled into a prospective registry between December 2006 and June 2013. Diagnostic and surveillance neuroimaging studies were analyzed for the presence of IVH and quantified by Graeb score. In subjects who developed IVH and underwent both MRI and CT, each MRI was paired with the CT scan done at the closest time point, and Graeb scores were compared with the Wilcoxon signed rank test for related samples.
resultsThere were 289 subjects in the cohort with IVH found in 171. Sixty-eight pairs of MRI and CT were available for comparison. CT failed to detect IVH in 3% of cases, whereas MRI was 100% sensitive. MRI and CT yielded equal Graeb scores in 72% of the pairs, and MRI Graeb score was higher in 24% (P = .007).
conclusionsMRI identifies small volumes of IVH in cases not detected by CT and yields higher estimates of intraventricular blood volume. These data indicate that consideration of technical differences is needed when comparing images from the 2 modalities in the evaluation for IVH.
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.