Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28895045›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2017

Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on proton density fat fraction using the six-echo Dixon method in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Tatsuya Hayashi, Kei Fukuzawa, Hiroshi Kondo, Hiroshi Onodera, Shuji Toyotaka, Rie Tojo, Shimpei Yano, Masakatsu Tano, Tosiaki Miyati, Jun'ichi Kotoku and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tatsuya HayashiGraduate School of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8605, Japan. t-hayashi@med.teikyo-u.ac.jp.
Kei FukuzawaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi KondoDepartment of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi OnoderaCentral of Radiology, Teikyo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuji ToyotakaCentral of Radiology, Teikyo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Rie TojoCentral of Radiology, Teikyo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Shimpei YanoCentral of Radiology, Teikyo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Masakatsu TanoDepartment of Radiological Technology, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Tosiaki MiyatiFaculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, Ishikawa, Japan.
Jun'ichi KotokuGraduate School of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8605, Japan.
Takahide OkamotoGraduate School of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8605, Japan.
Keiko ToyodaDepartment of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi ObaDepartment of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Teikyo University · JPTeikyo University Hospital · JPToranomon Hospital · JPKanazawa University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether disodium gadoxetate (Gd-EOB-DTPA) affects proton density fat fractions (PDFFs) during use of the multiecho Dixon (meDixon) method in phantom and simulation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at 3 T. Fat-water phantoms comprising vegetable fat-water emulsions with varying fat volume percentages (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 50) and Gd-EOB-DTPA concentrations (0 and 0.4 mM) were prepared. Phantoms without Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as precontrast, and those with Gd-EOB-DTPA were defined as postcontrast. All phantoms were scanned with a 3 T MRI system using the meDixon method, and precontrast and postcontrast PDFFs were calculated. Simulated pre and postcontrast PDFFs in the liver were calculated using a theoretical formula. The relationship between PDFFs measured in the pre and postcontrast phantoms was evaluated using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. The regression analysis comparing the pre and postcontrast PDFFs yielded a slope of 0.77 (P < 0.001). The PDFFs on the postcontrast phantom were smaller than those on the precontrast phantom. The mean difference between the PDFFs on the pre and postcontrast phantoms was 6.12% (95% confidence interval 3.13 to 9.10%; limits of agreement -0.88 to 13.11%). The simulated PDFF on the postcontrast phantom was smaller than that on the precontrast phantom. We demonstrated that the PDFF measured using the meDixon was smaller on postcontrast than on precontrast at 3 T, if a low flip angle was used. This tendency was also seen in the simulation study results.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaGadolinium DTPAPhantoms, ImagingProtonsAdipose TissueHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingWaterContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPAProtonsWaterFatGd-EOB-DTPALiverMagnetic resonance imagingPhantomQuantification

Identifiers

PMID28895045
OpenAlexW2754276642

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.