Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28428213›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2017

Clinically Feasible Microstructural MRI to Quantify Cervical Spinal Cord Tissue Injury Using DTI, MT, and T2*-Weighted Imaging: Assessment of Normative Data and Reliability.

A R Martin, B De Leener, J Cohen-Adad, D W Cadotte, S Kalsi-Ryan, S F Lange, L Tetreault, A Nouri, A Crawley, D J Mikulis and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Restless Spinal Cord in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021
    Article
  19. 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

12 authors.

A R MartinFrom the Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery (A.R.M., D.W.C., S.K.-R., L.T., A.N., H.G., M.G.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9495-5654
B De LeenerPolytechnique Montreal (B.D.L., J.C.-A.), Montréal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1378-2756
J Cohen-AdadPolytechnique Montreal (B.D.L., J.C.-A.), Montréal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3662-9532
D W CadotteFrom the Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery (A.R.M., D.W.C., S.K.-R., L.T., A.N., H.G., M.G.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2581-5903
S Kalsi-RyanFrom the Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery (A.R.M., D.W.C., S.K.-R., L.T., A.N., H.G., M.G.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2332-5986
S F LangeUniversity of Groningen (S.F.L.), Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2054-1536
L TetreaultFrom the Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery (A.R.M., D.W.C., S.K.-R., L.T., A.N., H.G., M.G.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8435-4292
A NouriFrom the Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery (A.R.M., D.W.C., S.K.-R., L.T., A.N., H.G., M.G.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4965-3059
A CrawleyDepartment of Medical Imaging (A.C., D.J.M.), University of Toronto and the University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4578-7110
D J MikulisDepartment of Medical Imaging (A.C., D.J.M.), University of Toronto and the University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3956-0892
H GinsbergFrom the Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery (A.R.M., D.W.C., S.K.-R., L.T., A.N., H.G., M.G.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2718-6549
M G FehlingsFrom the Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery (A.R.M., D.W.C., S.K.-R., L.T., A.N., H.G., M.G.F.) michael.fehlings@uhn.on.ca madeleineoh@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5722-6364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeDTI, magnetization transfer, T2*-weighted imaging, and cross-sectional area can quantify aspects of spinal cord microstructure. However, clinical adoption remains elusive due to complex acquisitions, cumbersome analysis, limited reliability, and wide ranges of normal values. We propose a simple multiparametric protocol with automated analysis and report normative data, analysis of confounding variables, and reliability. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty healthy subjects underwent T2WI, DTI, magnetization transfer, and T2*WI at 3T in <35 minutes using standard hardware and pulse sequences. Cross-sectional area, fractional anisotropy, magnetization transfer ratio, and T2*WI WM/GM signal intensity ratio were calculated. Relationships between MR imaging metrics and age, sex, height, weight, cervical cord length, and rostrocaudal level were analyzed. Test-retest coefficient of variation measured reliability in 24 DTI, 17 magnetization transfer, and 16 T2*WI datasets. DTI with and without cardiac triggering was compared in 10 subjects.

resultsT2*WI WM/GM showed lower intersubject coefficient of variation (3.5%) compared with magnetization transfer ratio (5.8%), fractional anisotropy (6.0%), and cross-sectional area (12.2%). Linear correction of cross-sectional area with cervical cord length, fractional anisotropy with age, and magnetization transfer ratio with age and height led to decreased coefficients of variation (4.8%, 5.4%, and 10.2%, respectively). Acceptable reliability was achieved for all metrics/levels (test-retest coefficient of variation < 5%), with T2*WI WM/GM comparing favorably with fractional anisotropy and magnetization transfer ratio. DTI with and without cardiac triggering showed no significant differences for fractional anisotropy and test-retest coefficient of variation.

conclusionsReliable multiparametric assessment of spinal cord microstructure is possible by using clinically suitable methods. These results establish normalization procedures and pave the way for clinical studies, with the potential for improving diagnostics, objectively monitoring disease progression, and predicting outcomes in spinal pathologies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnatomy, Cross-SectionalAnisotropyCervical VertebraeDiffusion Tensor ImagingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealthy VolunteersHeartHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedReference Values

Identifiers

PMID28428213
PMCPMC7960088

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.