ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2018
Feasibility of aortic valve planimetry at 7 T ultrahigh field MRI: Comparison to aortic valve MRI at 3 T and 1.5 T.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human In Vivo Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 7 T: Feasibility, Applications, and Current Limitations-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Radiofrequency antenna concepts for human cardiac MR at 14.0 T.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- 7-T clinical MRI of the shoulder in patients with suspected lesions of the rotator cuff.European radiology experimental · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study examined the feasibility of aortic valve planimetry at 7 T ultrahigh field MRI in intraindividual comparison to 3 T and 1.5 T MRI. MATERIAL AND
methodsAortic valves of eleven healthy volunteers (mean age, 26.4 years) were examined on a 7 T, 3 T, and 1.5 T MR system using FLASH and TrueFISP sequences. Two experienced radiologists evaluated overall image quality, the presence of artefacts, tissue contrast ratios, identifiability, and image details of the aortic valve opening area (AVOA). Furthermore, AVOA was quantified twice by reader 1 and once by reader 2. Correlation analysis between artefact severity and employed magnetic field strength was performed by modified Fisher's exac
resultsAortic valve imaging at 7 T, 3 T, and 1.5 T with using FLASH was less hampered by artefacts than TrueFISP imaging at 3 T and 1.5 T. Tissue contrast and image details were rated best at 7 T. AVOA was measured slightly smaller at 7 T compared to 3 T (TrueFISP, p-value = 0.057; FLASH, p-value = 0.016) and 1.5 T (TrueFISP, p-value = 0.029; FLASH, p-value = 0.018). Intra-rater and inter-rater variability of AVOA tended to be slightly smaller at 7 T than at 3 T and 1.5 T.
conclusionAortic valve planimetry at 7 T ultrahigh field MRI is technically feasible and in healthy volunteers offers an improved tissue contrast and a slightly better reproducibility than MR planimetry at 1.5 T and 3 T.
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.