ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2018
Gated thoracic magnetic resonance angiography at 3T: noncontrast versus blood pool contrast.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ferumoxytol-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: applications and technical advances.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Review
- Unveiling the next generation of MRI contrast agents: current insights and perspectives on ferumoxytol-enhanced MRI.National science review · 2024Review
- Three-dimensional aortic geometry mapping via registration of non-gated contrast-enhanced or gated and respiratory-navigated MR angiographies.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024Observational
- Cardiovascular imaging 2018 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Both noncontrast and contrast-enhanced approaches to gated thoracic magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for aortic root evaluation have been reported at 3T. We compare qualitative and quantitative image quality measures for the two approaches, and assess the reproducibility of standard aortic measurements. Respiratory and cardiac gated MRA of the chest was performed at 3T in 45 patients: 23 after administration of iron-based blood pool contrast, and 22 without contrast. Image quality was assessed with a 5-point Likert scale, vessel lumen-to-muscle contrast ratios, and vessel wall sharpness. Two reviewers measured the ascending aorta diameter and valve annulus area. Interrater agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV). Qualitative image quality was better with blood pool contrast in all principal vessels of the chest (mean Likert of 4.20 ± 0.79 vs. 2.60 ± 0.77, p < 0.001). Quantitative assessment was also improved with higher contrast ratios in all vessels (5.26 ± 3.3 vs. 1.90 ± 0.53, p < 0.001), and greater sharpness of the aortic annulus and ascending aorta (0.70 ± 0.16 vs. 0.56 ± 0.14 mm
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.