Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25945017›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Usefulness of two-point Dixon fat-water separation technique in gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging.

Ying Ding, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Cai-Zhong Chen, Ren-Chen Li, Meng-Su Zeng

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Improvement in Image Quality and Efficiency of Non-contrast Thoracic MR Angiography: Comparison of a Highly Accelerated Dixon-based Technique with the Conventional Fat-suppressed Technique.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ying DingYing Ding, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Cai-Zhong Chen, Ren-Chen Li, Meng-Su Zeng, Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai 200032, China.
Sheng-Xiang RaoYing Ding, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Cai-Zhong Chen, Ren-Chen Li, Meng-Su Zeng, Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai 200032, China.
Cai-Zhong ChenYing Ding, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Cai-Zhong Chen, Ren-Chen Li, Meng-Su Zeng, Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai 200032, China.
Ren-Chen LiYing Ding, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Cai-Zhong Chen, Ren-Chen Li, Meng-Su Zeng, Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai 200032, China.
Meng-Su ZengYing Ding, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Cai-Zhong Chen, Ren-Chen Li, Meng-Su Zeng, Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai 200032, China.
Fudan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare differences between volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) using two-point Dixon fat-water separation (Dixon-VIBE) and chemically selective fat saturation (FS-VIBE) with magnetic resonance imaging examination.

methodsForty-nine patients were included, who were scanned with two VIBE sequences (Dixon-VIBE and FS-VIBE) in hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetic acid administration. Subjective evaluations including sharpness of tumor, sharpness of vessels, strength and homogeneity of fat suppression, and artifacts that were scored using a 4-point scale. The liver-to-lesion contrast was also calculated and compared.

resultsDixon-VIBE with water reconstruction had significantly higher subjective scores than FS-VIBE in strength and homogeneity of fat suppression (< 0.0001) but lower scores in sharpness of tumor (P < 0.0001), sharpness of vessels (P = 0.0001), and artifacts (P = 0.034). The liver-to-lesion contrast on Dixon-VIBE images was significantly lower than that on FS-VIBE (16.6% ± 9.4% vs 23.9% ± 12.1%, P = 0.0001).

conclusionDixon-VIBE provides stronger and more homogenous fat suppression than FS-VIBE, while has lower clarity of focal liver lesions in hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetic acid administration.

Indexed as

Body WaterAdipose TissueAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArtifactsBreath HoldingContrast MediaFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPADixon-volumetric interpolated breath-hold examinationFat saturation-volumetric interpolated breath-hold examinationGadoxetic acidMagnetic resonance imagingVolumetric interpolated breath-hold examination

Identifiers

PMID25945017
PMCPMC4408476
OpenAlexW2326402338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.