ArticlePolish journal of radiology2017
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using an Open 1.0T MR Platform: A Comparative Study with a 1.5T Tunnel System.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2017. 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.
- Sustainable low-field cardiovascular magnetic resonance in changing healthcare systems.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022Review
- First-Step PPG Signal Analysis for Evaluation of Stress Induced during Scanning in the Open-Air MRI Device.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Analysis of the Influence of Different Settings of Scan Sequence Parameters on Vibration and Noise Generated in the Open-Air MRI Scanning Area.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) has become the non-invasive reference standard for the evaluation of cardiac function and viability. The introduction of open, high-field, 1.0T (HFO) MR scanners offers advantages for examinations of obese, claustrophobic and paediatric patients.The aim of our study was to compare standard cMRI sequences from an HFO scanner and those from a cylindrical, 1.5T MR system. MATERIAL/
methodFifteen volunteers underwent cMRI both in an open HFO and in a cylindrical MR system. The protocol consisted of cine and unenhanced tissue sequences. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for each sequence and blood-myocardium contrast for the cine sequences were assessed. Image quality and artefacts were rated. The location and number of non-diagnostic segments was determined. Volunteers' tolerance to examinations in both scanners was investigated.
resultsSNR was significantly lower in the HFO scanner (all p<0.001). However, the contrast of the cine sequence was significantly higher in the HFO platform compared to the 1.5T MR scanner (0.685±0.41
conclusionsStandard cardiac MRI sequences in an HFO platform offer a high image quality that is comparable to the quality of images acquired in a cylindrical 1.5T MR scanner. An open scanner design may potentially improve tolerance of cardiac MRI and therefore allow to examine an even broader patient spectrum.
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.