ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2018
A quantitative experimental phantom study on MRI image uniformity.
Article in Dento maxillo facial 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of metallic materials on magnetic resonance image uniformity: a quantitative experimental study.Oral radiology · 2025Article
- MRI susceptibility artefacts caused by orthodontic wire.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- Diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis using semi-quantitative MRI features of the pancreatic parenchyma: results from the multi-institutional MINIMAP study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Usefulness of black-blood magnetic resonance angiography generated from vessel wall imaging after the stent-assisted treatment of intracranial arterial diseases.The neuroradiology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur goal was to assess MR image uniformity by investigating aspects influencing said uniformity via a method laid out by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).
methodsSix metallic materials embedded in a glass phantom were scanned (i.e. Au, Ag, Al, Au-Ag-Pd alloy, Ti and Co-Cr alloy) as well as a reference image. Sequences included spin echo (SE) and gradient echo (GRE) scanned in three planes (i.e. axial, coronal, and sagittal). Moreover, three surface coil types (i.e. head and neck, Brain, and temporomandibular joint coils) and two image correction methods (i.e. surface coil intensity correction or SCIC, phased array uniformity enhancement or PURE) were employed to evaluate their effectiveness on image uniformity. Image uniformity was assessed using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association peak-deviation non-uniformity method.
resultsResults showed that temporomandibular joint coils elicited the least uniform image and brain coils outperformed head and neck coils when metallic materials were present. Additionally, when metallic materials were present, spin echo outperformed gradient echo especially for Co-Cr (particularly in the axial plane). Furthermore, both SCIC and PURE improved image uniformity compared to uncorrected images, and SCIC slightly surpassed PURE when metallic metals were present. Lastly, Co-Cr elicited the least uniform image while other metallic materials generally showed similar patterns (i.e. no significant deviation from images without metallic metals).
conclusionsOverall, a quantitative understanding of the factors influencing MR image uniformity (e.g. coil type, imaging method, metal susceptibility, and post-hoc correction method) is advantageous to optimize image quality, assists clinical interpretation, and may result in improved medical and dental care.
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.