ArticleEuropean radiology2015
Diagnostic performance of the three-dimensional fast spin echo-Cube sequence in comparison with a conventional imaging protocol in evaluation of the lachrymal drainage system.
Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Dacryocystography for Precise Diagnosis of Lacrimal and Perilacrimal Lesions.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Combined application of isotropic three-dimensional fast spin echo (3D-FSE-Cube) with 2-point Dixon fat/water separation (FLEX) and 3D-FSE-cube in MR dacryocystography.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the three-dimensional (3D)-fast spin-echo (FSE)-Cube with a conventional imaging protocol in evaluation of dacryostenosis.
methodsThirty-three patients with epiphora underwent examinations using Cube magnetic resonance dacryocystography (MRD) and a conventional protocol, which included 3D fast-recovery fast spin-echo (FRFSE) MRD and two-dimensional (2D)-FSE sequences at 3.0 T. Using lachrymal endoscopic findings as the reference standard, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of both protocols for detecting lachrymal drainage system (LDS) obstruction and their accuracies in depicting the level of obstruction. Comparable coronal and axial images were selected for bot sequences. Two neuroradiologists graded paired images for blurring, artefacts, anatomic details, and overall image quality.
resultsThe two methods showed no significant difference in sensitivity (89.5 % vs. 94.7 %; p =0.674), specificity (64.3 %; p =1) or accuracy (86.8 %; p =1) in detecting or depicting LDS obstruction. Blurring and artefacts were significantly better on 2D-FSE images (p <0.01 and p <0.05, respectively). Anatomic details were significantly better on Cube reformats (p <0.001). No significant difference existed in overall image quality (p >0.05).
conclusionsIn comparison with the conventional protocol, Cube MRD demonstrates satisfactory image quality and similar diagnostic capability for cases of possible LDS disease.
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.