ArticleLa Radiologia medica2016
Comparison between different software programs and post-processing techniques for the MRI quantification of liver iron concentration in thalassemia patients.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2016. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Liver Iron Overload: From Precise Quantification to Prognosis Assessment.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Assessing the accuracy of CMRtools software for diagnosing liver iron overload in thalassemia patients: influencing factors and optimisation strategies.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative Study on the Measurement of Liver LICdw between Ferriscan and T2* Based LICdw Obtained by Different Software's.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Management of Iron Overload in Beta-Thalassemia Patients: Clinical Practice Update Based on Case Series.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Evaluation of liver iron overload with R2* relaxometry with versus without fat suppression: both are clinically accurate but there are differences.European radiology · 2020Article
- Topics on quantitative liver magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relaxometry, various software programs are available to perform R2* measurements and to estimate the liver iron concentration (LIC). The main objective of our study was to compare R2* LIC values, obtained with three different software programs based on specific decay models and calibration curves, with LIC estimates provided by R2-relaxometry (FerriScan).
methodsThis retrospective study included 15 patients with 15 baseline MRIs and 34 serial examinations. R2* LIC estimates were calculated using the FuncTool, CMRtools/Thalassemia Tools and Quanta Hematology programs. Longitudinal LIC changes (ΔLIC) were calculated using the subset of 34 serial MRIs.
resultsAfter Bland-Altman analysis on baseline data, Quanta Hematology, which employs the monoexponential-plus-constant fit, produced the lowest mean difference [0.01 ± 0.14 log(mg/gdw)] with the closest limits of agreement. In the longitudinal setting, Quanta Hematology again gave the lowest mean difference between R2 and R2* LIC (0.1 ± 2.6 mg/gdw). Using FerriScan as reference, the value of concordant directional ΔLIC changes was the same for all programs (27/34, 85.7 %).
conclusionsR2* LICs are higher than R2 LICs at iron levels <7 mg/gdw, while R2 LIC averages higher than R2* LIC with increasing iron load. The monoexponential-plus-constant model provided the best agreement with R2 LIC estimates.
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.