ArticleHeliyon2016
Influence of clinical history on MRI interpretation of optic neuropathy.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents Improve Detection of Recurrent Soft-Tissue Sarcoma at MRI.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2020Article
- Optic Nerve Measurement on MRI in the Pediatric Population: Normative Values and Correlations.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeClinical history is known to influence interpretation of a wide range of radiologic examinations. We sought to evaluate the influence of the clinical history on MRI interpretation of optic neuropathy. MATERIALS AND
methods107 consecutive orbital MRI scans were retrospectively reviewed by three neuroradiologists. The readers independently evaluated the coronal STIR sequence for optic nerve hyperintensity and/or atrophy (yes/no) and the coronal post-contrast T1WI for optic nerve enhancement (yes/no). Readers initially evaluated the cases blinded to the clinical history. Following a two week washout period, readers again evaluated the cases with the clinical history provided. Inter-reader and reader-clinical radiologist agreement was assessed using Cohen's simple kappa coefficient.
resultsIntra-reader agreement, without and with provision of clinical history, was 0.564-0.716 on STIR and 0.270-0.495 on post-contrast T1WI. Inter-reader agreement was overall fair-moderate. On post-contrast T1WI, inter-reader agreement was significantly higher when the clinical history was provided (p = 0.001). Reader-clinical radiologist agreement improved with provision of the clinical history to the readers on both the STIR and post-contrast T1WI sequences.
conclusionsIn the MRI assessment of optic neuropathy, only modest levels of inter-reader agreement were achieved, even after provision of clinical history. Provision of clinical history improved inter-reader agreement, especially when assessing for optic nerve enhancement. These findings confirm the subjective nature of orbital MRI interpretation in cases of optic neuropathy, and point to the importance of an accurate clinical history. Of note, the accuracy of orbital MRI in the context of optic neuropathy was not assessed, and would require further investigation.
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.