ArticleSkeletal radiology2017
Magnetic resonance cinematography of the fingers: a 3.0 Tesla feasibility study with comparison of incremental and continuous dynamic protocols.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artifact characterization of Nitinol needles in magnetic resonance imaging-guided musculoskeletal interventions at 3.0 tesla: a phantom study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Dynamic study of the finger interphalangeal joint volar plate-motion analysis with magnetic resonance cinematography and histologic comparison.Skeletal radiology · 2023Article
- [Finger injuries with a focus on ligamentous structures].Der Radiologe · 2021Review
- Dynamic MRI for articulating joint evaluation on 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners: setup, protocols, and real-time sequences.Insights into imaging · 2020Review
- Assessment of vocal fold mobility using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in healthy volunteers.Polish journal of radiology · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the feasibility of magnetic resonance cinematography of the fingers (MRCF) with comparison of image quality of different protocols for depicting the finger anatomy during motion. MATERIALS AND
methodsMRCF was performed during a full flexion and extension movement in 14 healthy volunteers using a finger-gating device. Three real-time sequences (frame rates 17-59 images/min) and one proton density (PD) sequence (3 images/min) were acquired during incremental and continuous motion. Analyses were performed independently by three readers. Qualitative image analysis included Likert-scale grading from 0 (useless) to 5 (excellent) and specific visual analog scale (VAS) grading from 0 (insufficient) to 100 (excellent). Signal-to-noise calculation was performed. Overall percentage agreement and mean absolute disagreement were calculated.
resultsWithin the real-time sequences a high frame-rate true fast imaging with steady-state free precession (TRUFI) yielded the best image quality with Likert and overall VAS scores of 3.0 ± 0.2 and 60.4 ± 25.3, respectively. The best sequence regarding image quality was an incremental PD with mean values of 4.8 ± 0.2 and 91.2 ± 9.4, respectively. Overall percentage agreement and mean absolute disagreement were 47.9 and 0.7, respectively. No statistically significant SNR differences were found between continuous and incremental motion for the real-time protocols.
conclusionMRCF is feasible with appropriate image quality during continuous motion using a finger-gating device. Almost perfect image quality is achievable with incremental PD imaging, which represents a compromise for MRCF with the drawback of prolonged scanning time.
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.