Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26834942›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of radiology2016

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients, in-vitro and in-vivo reproducibility.

Maysam M Jafar, Arman Parsai, Marc E Miquel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maysam M JafarMaysam M Jafar, Arman Parsai, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, United Kingdom.
Arman ParsaiMaysam M Jafar, Arman Parsai, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, United Kingdom.
Marc E MiquelMaysam M Jafar, Arman Parsai, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, United Kingdom.
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is considerable disparity in the published apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values across different anatomies. Institutions are increasingly assessing repeatability and reproducibility of the derived ADC to determine its variation, which could potentially be used as an indicator in determining tumour aggressiveness or assessing tumour response. In this manuscript, a review of selected articles published to date in healthy extra-cranial body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is presented, detailing reported ADC values and discussing their variation across different studies. In total 115 studies were selected including 28 for liver parenchyma, 15 for kidney (renal parenchyma), 14 for spleen, 13 for pancreatic body, 6 for gallbladder, 13 for prostate, 13 for uterus (endometrium, myometrium, cervix) and 13 for fibroglandular breast tissue. Median ADC values in selected studies were found to be 1.28 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in liver, 1.94 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in kidney, 1.60 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in pancreatic body, 0.85 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in spleen, 2.73 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in gallbladder, 1.64 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s and 1.31 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in prostate peripheral zone and central gland respectively (combined median value of 1.54×10(-3) mm(2)/s), 1.44 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in endometrium, 1.53 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in myometrium, 1.71 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in cervix and 1.92 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in breast. In addition, six phantom studies and thirteen in vivo studies were summarized to compare repeatability and reproducibility of the measured ADC. All selected phantom studies demonstrated lower intra-scanner and inter-scanner variation compared to in vivo studies. Based on the findings of this manuscript, it is recommended that protocols need to be optimised for the body part studied and that system-induced variability must be established using a standardized phantom in any clinical study. Reproducibility of the measured ADC must also be assessed in a volunteer population, as variations are far more significant in vivo compared with phantom studies.

Indexed as

Apparent diffusion coefficientApparent diffusion coefficient reproducibilityCancer imagingDiffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imagingExtra-cranial organs

Identifiers

PMID26834942
PMCPMC4731347
OpenAlexW2268087421

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.