ArticleScientific reports2019
Comparison of two accelerated 4D-flow sequences for aortic flow quantification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Comparison of aortic blood flow rotational direction in healthy volunteers and patients with bicuspid aortic valves using volumetric velocity-sensitive cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- A novel MRI-based data fusion methodology for efficient, personalised, compliant simulations of aortic haemodynamics.Journal of biomechanics · 2021Article
- The role of 4D flow MRI for clinical applications in cardiovascular disease: current status and future perspectives.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Review
- 4D flow MRI applications in congenital heart disease.European radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare two broadly used 4D-flow- with a 2D-flow-sequence in healthy volunteers, regarding absolute flow parameters, image quality (IQ), and eddy current correction (ECC). Forty volunteers (42 ± 11.8 years, 22 females) were examined with a 3T scanner. Thoracic aortic flow was assessed using a 3D-T2w-SPACE-STIR-sequence for morphology and two accelerated 4D-flow sequences for comparison, one with k-t undersampling and one with standard GRAPPA parallel-imaging. 2D-flow was used as reference standard. The custom-made software tool Bloodline enabled flow measurements for all analyses at the same location. Quantitative flow analyses were performed with and without ECC. One reader assessed pathline IQ (IQ-PATH) and occurrence of motion artefacts (IQ-ART) on a 3-point grading scale, the higher the better. k-t GRAPPA allowed a significant mean scan time reduction of 46% (17:56 ± 5:26 min vs. 10:40 ± 3:15 min) and provided significantly fewer motion artefacts than standard GRAPPA (IQ-ART 1.57 ± 0.55 vs. 0.84 ± 0.48; p < 0.001). Neither 4D-flow sequence significantly differed in flow volume nor peak velocity results with or without ECC. Nevertheless, the correlation between both 4D-flow sequences and 2D-flow was better with ECC; the k-t GRAPPA sequence performed best (R = 0.96 vs. 0.90). k-t GRAPPA 4D-flow was not inferior to a standard GRAPPA-sequence, showed fewer artefacts, comparable IQ and was almost two-fold faster.
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.