ArticleSkeletal radiology2017
High-resolution metal artifact reduction MR imaging of the lumbosacral plexus in patients with metallic implants.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Updated Review of Magnetic Resonance Neurography for Plexus Imaging.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Review
- MRI-guided sacroiliac joint injections in children and adults: current practice and future developments.Skeletal radiology · 2023Review
- Role of MR Neurography for Evaluation of the Lumbosacral Plexus: A Scoping Review.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Article
- Pelvic bone tumor resection: post-operative imaging.Skeletal radiology · 2021Review
- Metal artifacts of hip arthroplasty implants at 1.5-T and 3.0-T: a closer look into the BSkeletal radiology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic and interventional magnetic resonance neurography diagnosis of brachytherapy seed-mediated pudendal nerve injury: a case report.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Updates in Musculoskeletal Imaging.Sports healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the quality and accuracy of metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of lumbosacral neuropathies in patients with metallic implants in the pelvis. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-two subjects with lumbosacral neuropathy following pelvic instrumentation underwent 1.5-T MARS MRI including optimized axial intermediate-weighted and STIR turbo spin echo sequences extending from L5 to the ischial tuberosity. Two readers graded the visibility of the lumbosacral trunk, sciatic, femoral, lateral femoral cutaneous, and obturator nerves and the nerve signal intensity of nerve, architecture, caliber, course, continuity, and skeletal muscle denervation. Clinical examination and electrodiagnostic studies were used as the standard of reference. Descriptive, agreement, and diagnostic performance statistics were applied.
resultsLumbosacral plexus visibility on MARS MRI was good (4) or very good (3) in 92% of cases with 81% exact agreement and a Kendall's W coefficient of 0.811. The obturator nerve at the obturator foramen and the sciatic nerve posterior to the acetabulum had the lowest visibility, with good or very good ratings in only 61% and 77% of cases respectively. The reader agreement for nerve abnormalities on MARS MRI was excellent, ranging from 95.5 to 100%. MARS MRI achieved a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 67%, positive predictive value of 95%, and negative predictive value of 40%, and accuracy of 83% for the detection of neuropathy.
conclusionMARS MRI yields high image quality and diagnostic accuracy for the assessment of lumbosacral neuropathies in patients with metallic implants of the pelvis and hips.
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.