ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018
Image quality assessment of silent T
Article in The British journal of radiology, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving image quality using the pause function combination to PROPELLER sequence in brain MRI: a phantom study.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Feasibility of online radial magnetic resonance imaging for adaptive radiotherapy of pancreatic tumors.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Spiral 2D T2-Weighted TSE Brain MR Imaging: Initial Clinical Experience.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021Article
- Qualitative and quantitative analysis of 3D T1 Silent imaging.La Radiologia medica · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInfants are vulnerable to high acoustic noise. Acoustic noise generated by MR scanning can be reduced by a silent sequence. The purpose of this study is to compare the image quality of the conventional and silent T2 PROPELLER sequences for brain imaging in infants.
methodsA total of 36 scans were acquired from 24 infants using a 3 T MR scanner. Each patient underwent both conventional and silent T2 PROPELLER sequences. Acoustic noise level was measured. Quantitative and qualitative assessments were performed with the images taken with each sequence.
resultsThe sound pressure level of the conventional T2 PROPELLER imaging sequence was 92.1 dB and that of the silent T2 PROPELLER imaging sequence was 73.3 dB (reduction of 20%). On quantitative assessment, the two sequences (conventional vs silent T2 PROPELLER) did not show significant difference in relative contrast (0.069 vs 0.068, p value = 0.536) and signal-to-noise ratio (75.4 vs 114.8, p value = 0.098). Qualitative assessment of overall image quality (p value = 0.572), grey-white differentiation (p value = 0.986), shunt-related artefact (p value > 0.999), motion artefact (p value = 0.801) and myelination degree in different brain regions (p values ≥ 0.092) did not show significant difference between the two sequences.
conclusionThe silent T2 PROPELLER sequence reduces acoustic noise and generated comparable image quality to that of the conventional sequence. Advances in knowledge: This is the first report to compare silent T2 PROPELLER images with that of conventional T2 PROPELLER images in children.
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.