ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2019
Reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping in lumbar vertebra.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing repeatability metrics for quantitative susceptibility mapping in the head and neck.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Quantifying calcium changes in the fetal spine using quantitative susceptibility mapping as extracted from STAGE imaging.European radiology · 2023Article
- The protective role of cigarette smoking against Parkinson's disease via moderation of the interaction between iron deposition in the nigrostriatal pathway and clinical symptoms.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Magnetic resonance quantitative susceptibility mapping in the evaluation of hepatic fibrosis in chronic liver disease: a feasibility study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- [Reproducibility analysis of quantitative susceptibility mapping of cerebral subcortical nuclei in healthy adults].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in the lumbar vertebra.
methodsFrom May 2017 to September 2017, 61 subjects who underwent QSM MRI and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study. QSM examination was performed two times with an interval of less than 1 week for each subject. For each data set, the QSM and QCT values on L1-L4 vertebral bodies were measured independently by two radiologists. The correlation coefficient between QSM and QCT values was calculated on L1-L4 vertebral bodies. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the inter-observer reliability and the inter-scan reproducibility on QSM.
resultsA total of 61 subjects (mean age, 55.5±13.7 years) with 244 vertebral bodies were analyzed. Overall, QSM and QCT showed good correlation in the L1-L4 vertebral body, especially in the L3 (R=-0.75). QSM value showed excellent inter-observer reliability (ICC, 0.992, 95% CI: 0.985-0.996) with a mean difference of 0.35 and 95% limits of agreements of within -22.74 to 23.45 ppb, and very good inter-scan reproducibility (ICC, 0.932, 95% CI: 0.886-0.959) with a mean difference of -7.60 ppb and 95% limits of agreements of within of -92.85 to 77.62 ppb.
conclusionsQSM in the lumbar vertebra is a reliable and reproducible technique for evaluating bone mineral density.
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.