ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2018
Transient severe motion during arterial phase in patients with Gadoxetic acid administration: Can a five hepatic arterial subphases technique mitigate the artifact?
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based image reconstruction for the multi-arterial phase images: improvement of the image quality to assess the small hypervascular hepatic tumor on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Transient Respiratory-motion Artifact and Scan Timing during the Arterial Phase of Gadoxetate Disodium-enhanced MR Imaging: The Benefit of Shortened Acquisition and Multiple Arterial Phase Acquisition.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2021Article
- The combination of hepatobiliary phase with Gd-EOB-DTPA and DWI is highly accurate for the detection and characterization of liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumor.European radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) is a hepatocyte-specific magnetic resonance (MR) contrast agent, which has been increasingly used in recent years. However, it has been reported that Gd-EOB-DTPA related transient severe motion (TSM) is sometimes observed during the hepatic arterial phase of MR imaging, which may influence image quality. Since the hepatic arterial phase of contrast enhancement is used for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, it is crucial to obtain a decent arterial phase imaging. The present study analyzed motion in patients receiving Gd-EOB-DTPA, comparing a single arterial phase acquisition to a five arterial phase acquisition to determine whether the multiphase acquisition was able to alleviate the TSM-related hepatic arterial MR imaging artifact. It was demonstrated that the single-phase acquisition failed to provide adequate diagnostic image quality in patients with TSM, whereas the multiphase arterial acquisition provided acceptable image quality in 20/22 (90.9%) patients with TSM. In conclusion, the results of the present study demonstrated that multiphase arterial acquisition is superior to single-phase arterial acquisition, mitigating arterial MR imaging artifacts caused by TSM after the administration of Gd-EOB-DTPA.
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.