ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2017
An empirical method for reducing variability and complexity of myocardial perfusion quantification by dual bolus cardiac MRI.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in myocardial blood flow in a canine model of left sided breast cancer radiotherapy.PloS one · 2023Article
- Impact of Temporal Resolution and Methods for Correction on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Quantification.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Article
- Optimal saturation recovery time for minimizing the underestimation of arterial input function in quantitative cardiac perfusion MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Accelerated, first-pass cardiac perfusion pulse sequence with radial k-space sampling, compressed sensing, and k-space weighted image contrast reconstruction tailored for visual analysis and quantification of myocardial blood flow.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMyocardial perfusion can be quantified using the "dual bolus" technique, which uses two separate contrast boluses to avoid signal nonlinearity in the blood pool. This technique relies on knowing the precise ratio of contrast concentrations between the two boluses. In this study, we investigated the variability found in these ratios, as well as the error it introduces, and developed a method for correction.
methodsFive dogs received dual bolus myocardial perfusion MRI scans. Perfusion was calculated separately using assumed contrast dilution ratios and empirically determined contrast ratios. Perfusion was compared with reference standard fluorescent microspheres. The same technique was then applied to a cohort of six patients with no significant coronary artery stenosis by cardiac catheterization.
resultsAssumed contrast dilution ratios were 10:1 for all animal and patient scans. Empirically derived contrast ratios were significantly different for animal (8.51:1 ± 1.53:1, P < 0.001) and patient scans (7.32:1 ± 2.27:1, P < 0.01). Incorporating empirically derived ratios for animal scans improved correlation with microspheres from 0.84 to 0.90 (P < 0.05).
conclusionVariability in dual bolus contrast concentration ratios is an important source of experimental error, especially outside of a carefully controlled laboratory setting. Empirically deriving the correct ratio is feasible and improves the accuracy of quantitative perfusion measurements. Magn Reson Med 77:2347-2355, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
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.