Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28070841›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2017

Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in the study of brain gliomas: a comparison of data obtained using different commercial software.

Gian Marco Conte, Antonella Castellano, Luisa Altabella, Antonella Iadanza, Marcello Cadioli, Andrea Falini, Nicoletta Anzalone

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Repeatability of dynamic contrast enhanced vJournal of neuro-oncology · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gian Marco ConteNeuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy.
Antonella CastellanoNeuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy.
Luisa AltabellaNeuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy.
Antonella IadanzaNeuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy.
Marcello CadioliNeuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy.
Andrea FaliniNeuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy.
Nicoletta AnzaloneNeuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy. anzalone.nicoletta@hsr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4249-2723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) are useful tools in the diagnosis and follow-up of brain gliomas; nevertheless, both techniques leave the open issue of data reproducibility. We evaluated the reproducibility of data obtained using two different commercial software for perfusion maps calculation and analysis, as one of the potential sources of variability can be the software itself.

methodsDSC and DCE analyses from 20 patients with gliomas were tested for both the intrasoftware (as intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility) and the intersoftware reproducibility, as well as the impact of different postprocessing choices [vascular input function (VIF) selection and deconvolution algorithms] on the quantification of perfusion biomarkers plasma volume (Vp), volume transfer constant (K

resultsFor all the biomarkers, the intra- and interobserver reproducibility resulted in almost perfect agreement in each software, whereas for the intersoftware reproducibility the value ranged from 0.311 to 0.577, suggesting fair to moderate agreement; Bland-Altman analysis showed high dispersion of data, thus confirming these findings. Comparisons of different VIF estimation methods for DCE biomarkers resulted in ICC of 0.636 for K

conclusionsThe use of single software ensures very good intraobserver and interobservers reproducibility. Caution should be taken when comparing data obtained using different software or different postprocessing within the same software, as reproducibility is not guaranteed anymore.

Indexed as

SoftwareAdolescentAdultAgedAlgorithmsBrain NeoplasmsContrast MediaFemaleGliomaHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedOrganometallic CompoundsContrast MediagadobutrolOrganometallic CompoundsDynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE)Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC)GliomasPerfusion weighted MRIReproducibility of findingsVascular input function (VIF)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.