ArticleKorean journal of radiology
Subtraction MR Venography Acquired from Time-Resolved Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography: Comparison with Phase-Contrast MR Venography and Single-Phase Contrast-Enhanced MR Venography.
Article in Korean journal of radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the image characteristics of subtraction magnetic resonance venography (SMRV) from time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography (TRMRA) compared with phase-contrast MR venography (PCMRV) and single-phase contrast-enhanced MR venography (CEMRV). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-one patients who underwent brain MR venography (MRV) using standard protocols (PCMRV, CEMRV, and TRMRA) were included. SMRV was made by subtracting the arterial phase data from the venous phase data in TRMRA. Co-registration and subtraction of the two volume data was done using commercially available software. Image quality and the degree of arterial contamination of the three MRVs were compared. In the three MRVs, 19 pre-defined venous structures (14 dural sinuses and 5 cerebral veins) were evaluated. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the three MRVs were also compared.
resultsSingle-phase contrast-enhanced MR venography showed better image quality (median score 4 in both reviewers) than did the other two MRVs (p < 0.001), whereas SMRV (median score 3 in both reviewers) and PCMRV (median score 3 in both reviewers) had similar image quality (p ≥ 0.951). SMRV (median score 0 in both reviewers) suppressed arterial signal better than did the other MRVs (median score 1 in CEMRV, median score 2 in PCMRV, both reviewers) (p < 0.001). The dural sinus score of SMRV (median and interquartile range [IQR] 48, 43-50 for reviewer 1, 47, 43-49 for reviewer 2) was significantly higher than for PCMRV (median and IQR 31, 25-34 for reviewer 1, 30, 23-32 for reviewer 2) (p < 0.01) and did not differ from that of CEMRV (median and IQR 50, 47-52 for reviewer 1, 49, 45-51 for reviewer 2) (p = 0.146 in reviewer 1 and 0.123 in reviewer 2). The SNR and CNR of SMRV (median and IQR 104.5, 83.1-121.2 and 104.1, 74.9-120.5, respectively) were between those of CEMRV (median and IQR 150.3, 111-182.6 and 148.4, 108-178.2) and PCMRV (median and IQR 59.4, 49.2-74.9 and 53.6, 43.8-69.2).
conclusionSubtraction magnetic resonance venography is a promising MRV method, with acceptable image quality and good arterial suppression.
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.