Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29659065›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2019

Comparing the reproducibility of commonly used magnetic resonance spectroscopy techniques to quantify cerebral glutathione.

S Andrea Wijtenburg, Jamie Near, Stephanie A Korenic, Frank E Gaston, Hongji Chen, Mark Mikkelsen, Shuo Chen, Peter Kochunov, L Elliot Hong, Laura M Rowland

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Test-retest precision of brain metabolites in healthy participants usingQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. In Vivo Brain GSH: MRS Methods and Clinical Applications.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

S Andrea WijtenburgNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jamie NearCentre d'Imagerie Cérébrale, Douglas Mental Health Institute, Montreal, Canada.
Stephanie A KorenicNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Frank E GastonNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Hongji ChenNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mark MikkelsenRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Shuo ChenNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Peter KochunovNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
L Elliot HongNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Laura M RowlandNeuroimaging Research Program, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

SOLAR-Eclipse Computational Tools for Imaging GeneticsR01EB015611 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI KOCHUNOV, PETER V. · 2012 to 2024
$5.0M
Multimodal neuroimaging study of relational learning in schizophreniaR01MH094520 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI ROWLAND, LAURA M · 2012 to 2016
$1.9M
Hybrid GPU/CPU Computing Resource to Support Connectomic and GenomicsS10OD023696 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI KOCHUNOV, PETER V. · 2018 to 2018
$593k
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB015611NIH HHS S10 OD023696NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH094520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCerebral glutathione (GSH), a marker of oxidative stress, has been quantified in neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Using a reproducible MRS technique is important, as it minimizes the impact of measurement technique variability on the study results and ensures that other studies can replicate the results. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that very short echo time (TE) acquisitions would have comparable reproducibility to a long TE MEGA-PRESS acquisition, and that the short TE PRESS acquisition would have the poorest reproducibility. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS/PHANTOMS: Ten healthy adults were scanned during two visits, and six metabolite phantoms containing varying concentrations of GSH and metabolites with resonances that overlap with GSH were scanned once. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: At 3T we acquired MRS data using four different sequences: PRESS, SPECIAL, PR-STEAM, and MEGA-PRESS. ASSESSMENT: Reproducibility of each MRS sequence across two visits was assessed. STATISTICAL TESTS: Mean coefficients of variation (CV) and mean absolute difference (AD) were used to assess reproducibility. Linear regressions were performed on data collected from phantoms to examine the agreement between known and quantified levels of GSH.

resultsOf the four techniques, PR-STEAM had the lowest mean CV and AD (5.4% and 7.5%, respectively), implying excellent reproducibility, followed closely by PRESS (5.8% and 8.2%) and SPECIAL (8.0 and 10.1%), and finally by MEGA-PRESS (13.5% and 17.1%). Phantom data revealed excellent fits (R DATA

conclusionOur data suggest that GSH can be quantified reproducibly without the use of spectral editing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:176-183.

Indexed as

Oxidative StressProton Magnetic Resonance SpectroscopyAdultBrainFemaleGlutathioneHealthy VolunteersHumansLinear ModelsMalePhantoms, ImagingProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultGlutathioneglutathionemagnetic resonance spectroscopyMEGA-PRESSphase rotation STEAMreproducibilitySPECIAL

Identifiers

PMID29659065
PMCPMC6191387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.