Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26494461›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2016

Neonatal brain MRI: how reliable is the radiologist's eye?

B Morel, G Antoni, J P Teglas, I Bloch, C Adamsbaum

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

B MorelPediatric Radiology, A. Trousseau Hospital APHP, 26 avenue du Dr Arnold Netter, 75012, Paris, France. baptistemorelaphp@gmail.com.
G AntoniINSERM, CESP Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Reproduction and Child Development, F-94807, Villejuif, France.
J P TeglasINSERM, CESP Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Reproduction and Child Development, F-94807, Villejuif, France.
I BlochLTCI, CNRS, Télécom ParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France.
C AdamsbaumFaculty of Medicine, Paris Sud University, Pediatric Radiology Department Bicêtre Hospital APHP, Paris, France.
Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations · FRBicêtre Hospital · FRHôpital Saint-Vincent-de-Paul · FRLaboratoire Traitement et Communication de l’Information · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhite matter (WM) analysis in neonatal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging, as demonstrated by the issue of diffuse excessive high signal intensity (DEHSI). We evaluated the reliability of the radiologist's eye in this context.

methodsThree experienced observers graded the WM signal intensity on axial T2-weighted 1.5T images from 60 different premature newborns on 2 occasions 4 weeks apart with a semi-quantitative classification under identical viewing conditions.

resultsThe intra- and inter-observer correlation coefficients were fair to moderate (Fleiss' kappa between 0.21 and 0.60).

conclusionThis is a serious limitation of which we need to be aware, as it can lead to contradictory conclusions in the challenging context of term-equivalent age brain MRI in premature infants. These results highlight the need for a semiautomatic tool to help in objectively analyzing MRI signal intensity in the neonatal brain.

Indexed as

BrainDiffusion Tensor ImagingFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureMaleObserver VariationPerinatal CareReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityWhite MatterDEHSINeonatal brain MRISignal analysis

Identifiers

PMID26494461
OpenAlexW2166170436

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.