ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2015
Quantification of Intramyocardial Metabolites by Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multinuclear MRI in Drug Discovery.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging of cardiac metabolism in heart failure: how far have we come?European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022Article
- Water-suppression cycling 3-T cardiacNMR in biomedicine · 2021Article
- Diabesity: the combined burden of obesity and diabetes on heart disease and the role of imaging.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2021Review
- Non-Water-SuppressedScientific reports · 2017 · on this mapArticle
- Principals and clinical applications of magnetic resonance cardiac spectroscopy in heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2017Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo define intramyocardial triglyceride (TG), creatine (Cr), and choline (Cho) in healthy volunteers, and determine the feasibilities, scan durations and agreements between cardiac proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ([(1)H]-MRS) performed with fewer signal averages versus a reference standard with 128 signal averages. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-one participants underwent [(1)H]-MRS using 16, 32, 64, and 128 signal averages. Intramyocardial TG, Cr, or Cho contents relative to water were calculated and expressed as a percentage.
resultsMean intramyocardial TG, Cr, and Cho were 1.30 ± 1.13, 0.19 ± 0.18, and 0.24 ± 0.28%, respectively. The feasibilities for quantifying intramyocardial TG, Cr, and Cho using fewer signal averages ranged from 93.5 to 100, 90.3 to 93.5, and 90.3 to 96.8%, respectively. Scan durations for 16, 32, 64, and 128 signal averages were 1.1 ± 0.5, 2.6 ± 0.9, 5.9 ± 2.0, and 13.2 ± 4.5 min, respectively (p < 0.001). Agreements with the reference standard 128 signal average was higher for quantification of intramyocardial TG compared to Cr and Cho.
conclusionQuantification of intramyocardial TG with [(1)H]-MRS with only 64 signal averages was highly feasible, showed excellent agreement with 128 signal averages, and had significantly shorter scan duration. By contrast, quantifying Cr and Cho using fewer signal averages had lower feasibilities and agreements compared to 128 signal averages.
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.