ArticlePloS one2017
Imaging of pediatric great vessel stents: Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging?
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stent appearance in a novel silicon-based photon-counting CT prototype: ex vivo phantom study in head-to-head comparison with conventional energy-integrating CT.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Performance of Cardiac MRI in Pediatric and Adult Patients with Fontan Circulation.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2022Review
- Image quality and radiation dose of ECG-triggered High-Pitch Dual-Source cardiac computed tomography angiography in children for the evaluation of central vascular stents.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
- Computed tomography image quality of aortic stents in patients with aortic coarctation: a multicentre evaluation.European radiology experimental · 2018Article
- Modeling and analysis of biomagnetic blood Carreau fluid flow through a stenosis artery with magnetic heat transfer: A transient study.PloS one · 2018Article
- Radiation dose reduction in pediatric great vessel stent computed tomography using iterative reconstruction: A phantom study.PloS one · 2017Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplications might occur after great vessel stent implantation in children. Therefore follow-up using imaging is warranted. PURPOSE: To determine the optimal imaging modality for the assessment of stents used to treat great vessel obstructions in children. MATERIAL AND
methodsFive different large vessel stents were evaluated in an in-vitro setting. All stents were expanded to the maximal vendor recommended diameter (20mm; n = 4 or 10mm; n = 1), placed in an anthropomorphic chest phantom and imaged with a 256-slice CT-scanner. MRI images were acquired at 1.5T using a multi-slice T2-weighted turbo spin echo, an RF-spoiled three-dimensional T1-weighted Fast Field Echo and a balanced turbo field echo 3D sequence. Two blinded observers assessed stent lumen visibility (measured diameter/true diameter *100%) in the center and at the outlets of the stent. Reproducibility of diameter measurements was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient for reliability and 95% limits of agreement for agreement analysis.
resultsMedian stent lumen visibility was 88 (IQR 86-90)% with CT for all stents at both the center and outlets. With MRI, the T2-weighted turbo spin echo sequence was preferred which resulted in 82 (78-84%) stent lumen visibility. Interobserver reliability and agreement was good for both CT (ICC 0.997, mean difference -0.51 [-1.07-0.05] mm) and MRI measurements (ICC 0.951, mean difference -0.05 [-2.52 --2.41] mm).
conclusionGood in-stent lumen visibility was achievable in this in-vitro study with both CT and MRI in different great vessel stents. Overall reliability was good with clinical acceptable limits of agreement for both CT and MRI. However, common conditions such as in-stent stenosis and associated aneurysms were not tested in this in-vitro study, limiting the value of the in-vitro study.
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.