ArticleBMC medical imaging2018
Comparison of two different measurement methods in evaluating basilar atherosclerotic plaque using high-resolution MRI at 3 tesla.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Longitudinal Distribution and Stability of Curved Basilar Artery Plaque: A Study Based on HR-MRI.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the Self-referenced and Referenced measurement methods in assessing basilar artery (BA) atherosclerotic plaque employing dark blood high-resolution MRI at 3 Tesla.
methodsForty patients with > 20% stenosis as identified by conventional MRA were recruited and evaluated on a 3 Tesla MRI system. The outer wall, inner wall and lumen areas of maximal lumen narrowing site and the outer wall and lumen areas of sites that were proximal and distal to the maximal lumen narrowing site were manually traced. Plaque area (PA), stenosis rate (SR) and percent plaque burden (PPB) were calculated using the Self-referenced and Referenced measurement methods, respectively. To assess intra-observer reproducibility, BA plaque was measured twice with a 2-week interval in between measurements.
resultsThirty-seven patients were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences in PA, SR and PPB measurements between the two methods. The intra-class coefficients and coefficient of variations (CV) ranged from 0.976 to 0.990 and from 3.73 to 5.61% for the Self-referenced method and ranged from 0.928 to 0.971 and from 4.64 to 9.95% for the Referenced method, respectively. Both methods are effective in the evaluation of BA plaque. However, the CVs of the Self-referenced method is lower than the Referenced measurement method. Moreover, Bland-Altman plots showed that the Self-referenced method has a narrower interval than the Referenced measurement method.
conclusionsThe Self-referenced method is better and more convenient for evaluating BA plaque, and it may serve as a promising method for evaluation of basilar atherosclerotic plaque.
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.