ArticleRadiological physics and technology2016
Liver acquisition with volume acceleration flex on 70-cm wide-bore and 60-cm conventional-bore 3.0-T MRI.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usefulness of rapid MR angiography using two-point Dixon for evaluating carotid and aortic plaques.Neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Application study of 3D LAVA-Flex on lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.European journal of medical research · 2021Article
- 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
- Portable perfusion phantom for quantitative DCE-MRI of the abdomen.Medical physics · 2017Article
- Reliability of Glutamate Quantification in Human Nucleus Accumbens Using Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy at a 70-cm Wide-Bore Clinical 3T MRI System.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the uniformity of fat suppression and image quality between liver acquisition with volume acceleration flex (LAVA-Flex) and LAVA on 60-cm conventional-bore and 70-cm wide-bore 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The uniformity of fat suppression by LAVA-Flex and LAVA was assessed as the efficiency of suppression of superficial fat at the levels of the liver dome, porta, and renal hilum. Percentage standard deviation (%SD) was calculated using the following equation: %SD (%) = 100 × SD of the regions of interest (ROIs)/mean value of the signal intensity (SI) in the ROIs. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast ratio (CR) were calculated. In the LAVA sequence, the %SD in all slices on wide-bore 3.0-T MRI was significantly higher than that on conventional-bore 3.0-T MRI (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in fat signal uniformity between the conventional and wide-bore scanners when LAVA-Flex was used. In the liver, there were no significant differences in SNR between the two sequences. However, the SNR in the pancreas was lower for the wide-bore scanner than for the conventional-bore scanner for both sequences (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in CR for the liver and fat between LAVA-Flex and LAVA in both scanners. The CR in the LAVA-Flex images obtained by wide-bore MRI was significantly higher than that in the LAVA-Flex images recorded by conventional-bore MRI (P < 0.001). LAVA-Flex offers more homogenous fat suppression in the upper abdomen than LAVA for both conventional and wide-bore 3.0-T MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26739299What 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.