Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30093483›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2018

Evaluation of Thick-Slab Overlapping MIP Images of Contrast-Enhanced 3D T1-Weighted CUBE for Detection of Intracranial Metastases: A Pilot Study for Comparison of Lesion Detection, Interpretation Time, and Sensitivity with Nonoverlapping CUBE MIP, CUBE, and Inversion-Recovery-Prepared Fast-Spoiled Gradient Recalled Brain Volume.

B C Yoon, A F Saad, P Rezaii, M Wintermark, G Zaharchuk, M Iv

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Vessel wall MR imaging in neuroradiology.La Radiologia medica · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

B C YoonFrom the Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0003-4314-439X
A F SaadFrom the Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0002-6769-9712
P RezaiiFrom the Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0002-4803-0853
M WintermarkFrom the Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0002-6726-3951
G ZaharchukFrom the Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0001-5781-8848
M IvFrom the Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention, Stanford University, Stanford, California. miv@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6794-7213
Cognitive Neuroimaging Lab · FRStanford Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeEarly and accurate identification of cerebral metastases is important for prognostication and treatment planning although this process is often time consuming and labor intensive, especially with the hundreds of images associated with 3D volumetric imaging. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of thick-slab overlapping MIPs constructed from contrast-enhanced T1-weighted CUBE (overlapping CUBE MIP) for the detection of brain metastases in comparison with traditional CUBE and inversion-recovery prepared fast-spoiled gradient recalled brain volume (IR-FSPGR-BRAVO) and nonoverlapping CUBE MIP. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective review of 48 patients with cerebral metastases was performed at our institution from June 2016 to October 2017. Brain MRIs, which were acquired on multiple 3T scanners, included gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted IR-FSPGR-BRAVO and CUBE, with subsequent generation of nonoverlapping CUBE MIP and overlapping CUBE MIP. Two blinded radiologists identified the total number and location of metastases on each image type. The Cohen κ was used to determine interrater agreement. Sensitivity, interpretation time, and lesion contrast-to-noise ratio were assessed.

resultsInterrater agreement for identification of metastases was fair-to-moderate for all image types (κ = 0.222-0.598). The total number of metastases identified was not significantly different across the image types. Interpretation time for CUBE MIPs was significantly shorter than for CUBE and IR-FSPGR-BRAVO, saving at least 50 seconds per case on average (

conclusionsThis study suggests that the use of overlapping CUBE MIP or nonoverlapping CUBE MIP for the detection of brain metastases can reduce interpretation time without sacrificing sensitivity, though the contrast-to-noise ratio of lesions is highest for overlapping CUBE MIP.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsContrast MediaFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeuroimagingPilot ProjectsContrast MediaGadolinium DTPA

Identifiers

PMID30093483
PMCPMC7655284
OpenAlexW2887167507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.