ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2016
Validation of T2* in-line analysis for tissue iron quantification at 1.5 T.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of R2* magnetic resonance imaging for quantifying secondary iron overload in pediatric patients.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Optimisation of T2 and T2* sequences in MRI for better quantification of iron on transfused dependent sickle cell patients.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Difficult diagnosis of cardiac haemochromatosis: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2020Article
- Ultrasmall superparamagnetic nanoparticles targeting E-selectin: synthesis and effects in mice in vitro and in vivo.International journal of nanomedicine · 2019Article
- Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2017.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2018Review
- Clinical use of cardiac PET/MRI: current state-of-the-art and potential future applications.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Review
- Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) 2015-2016 and transition of the JCMR office to Boston.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017Review
- Age and sex corrected normal reference values of T1, T2 T2* and ECV in healthy subjects at 3T CMR.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 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
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a need for improved worldwide access to tissue iron quantification using T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). One route to facilitate this would be simple in-line T2* analysis widely available on MR scanners. We therefore compared our clinically validated and established T2* method at Royal Brompton Hospital (RBH T2*) against a novel work-in-progress (WIP) sequence with in-line T2* measurement from Siemens (WIP T2*).
methodsHealthy volunteers (n = 22) and patients with iron overload (n = 78) were recruited (53 males, median age 34 years). A 1.5 T study (Magnetom Avanto, Siemens) was performed on all subjects. The same mid-ventricular short axis cardiac slice and transaxial slice through the liver were used to acquire both RBH T2* images and WIP T2* maps for each participant. Cardiac white blood (WB) and black blood (BB) sequences were acquired. Intraobserver, interobserver and interstudy reproducibility were measured on the same data from a subset of 20 participants.
resultsLiver T2* values ranged from 0.8 to 35.7 ms (median 5.1 ms) and cardiac T2* values from 6.0 to 52.3 ms (median 31 ms). The coefficient of variance (CoV) values for direct comparison of T2* values by RBH and WIP were 6.1-7.8 % across techniques. Accurate delineation of the septum was difficult on some WIP T2* maps due to artefacts. The inability to manually correct for noise by truncation of erroneous later echo times led to some overestimation of T2* using WIP T2* compared with the RBH T2*. Reproducibility CoV results for RBH T2* ranged from 1.5 to 5.7 % which were better than the reproducibility of WIP T2* values of 4.1-16.6 %.
conclusionsIron estimation using the T2* CMR sequence in combination with Siemens' in-line data processing is generally satisfactory and may help facilitate global access to tissue iron assessment. The current automated T2* map technique is less good for tissue iron assessment with noisy data at low T2* values.
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.