ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Evaluation of fast highly undersampled contrast-enhanced MR angiography (sparse CE-MRA) in intracranial applications - initial study.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fast TWIST with iterative reconstruction improves diagnostic accuracy of AVM of the hand.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Magnetic resonance angiography with compressed sensing: An evaluation of moyamoya disease.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the image quality of sparsely sampled contrast-enhanced MR angiography (sparse CE-MRA) providing high spatial resolution and whole-head coverage. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-three patients scheduled for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the head, (N = 19 with intracranial pathologies, N = 9 with vascular diseases), were included. Sparse CE-MRA at 3 Tesla was conducted using a single dose of contrast agent. Two neuroradiologists independently evaluated the data regarding vascular visibility and diagnostic value of overall 24 parameters and vascular segments on a 5-point ordinary scale (5 = very good, 1 = insufficient vascular visibility). Contrast bolus timing and the resulting arterio-venous overlap was also evaluated. Where available (N = 9), sparse CE-MRA was compared to intracranial Time-of-Flight MRA.
resultsThe overall rating across all patients for sparse CE-MRA was 3.50 ± 1.07. Direct influence of the contrast bolus timing on the resulting image quality was observed. Overall mean vascular visibility and image quality across different features was rated good to intermediate (3.56 ± 0.95). The average performance of intracranial Time-of-Flight was rated 3.84 ± 0.87 across all patients and 3.54 ± 0.62 across all features.
conclusionSparse CE-MRA provides high-quality 3D MRA with high spatial resolution and whole-head coverage within short acquisition time. Accurate contrast bolus timing is mandatory. KEY POINTS: • Sparse CE-MRA enables fast vascular imaging with full brain coverage. • Volumes with sub-millimetre resolution can be acquired within 10 seconds. • Reader's ratings are good to intermediate and dependent on contrast bolus timing. • The method provides an excellent overview and allows screening for vascular pathologies.
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.