Trial reportAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2016
Comparison of Quantitative Cerebral Blood Flow Measurements Performed by Bookend Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast and Arterial Spin-Labeling MRI in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.
Trial report in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2016. 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.
- Quantitative perfusion mapping with induced transient hypoxia using BOLD MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2021Article
- Ultra-high-field arterial spin labelling MRI for non-contrast assessment of cortical lesion perfusion in multiple sclerosis.European radiology · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeQuantitative CBF usage as a biomarker for cognitive impairment and disease progression in MS is potentially a powerful tool for longitudinal patient monitoring. Dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion with bookend T1-calibration (bookend technique) and pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling have recently been used for CBF quantification in relapsing-remitting MS. The noninvasive nature of pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling is advantageous over gadolinium-based techniques, but correlation between the techniques is not well-established in the context of MS. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe compared pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling CBF with the bookend technique in a prospective cohort of 19 healthy controls, 19 subjects with relapsing-remitting MS without cognitive impairment, and 20 subjects with relapsing-remitting MS with cognitive impairment on a voxelwise and Brodmann region basis. The linear Pearson correlation, SNR, and coefficient of variation were quantified.
resultsVoxelwise paired t tests revealed no significant CBF differences between techniques after normalization of global mean intensities. The highest Pearson correlations were observed in deep GM structures (average r = 0.71 for the basal ganglia and r = 0.65 for the thalamus) but remained robust for cortical GM, WM, and white matter lesions (average r = 0.51, 0.53, 0.54, respectively). Lower Pearson correlations were observed for cortical lesions (average r = 0.23). Brodmann region correlations were significant for all groups. All correlations were maintained in healthy controls and in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The highest SNR was present in bookend perfusion, while the highest coefficient of variation was present in white matter lesions.
conclusionsAgreement between pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling and bookend technique CBF measurements is demonstrated in healthy controls and patients with relapsing-remitting MS.
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.