ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019
Normal values and test-retest variability of stimulated-echo diffusion tensor imaging and fat fraction measurements in the muscle.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Voxels to Physiology: A Review of Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Applications in Skeletal Muscle.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- The utility of muscle magnetic resonance imaging in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a scoping review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) diffusion tensor imaging with different diffusion encoding times in the supraspinatus muscle: Test-retest reliability and comparison to spin echo diffusion tensor imaging.NMR in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of masticatory muscle dysfunction in unilateral exodontia rabbits.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
- Muscle deterioration due to rheumatoid arthritis: assessment by quantitative MRI and strength testing.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- MRI in acute muscle tears in athletes: can quantitative T2 and DTI predict return to play better than visual assessment?European radiology · 2020Observational
- Speed of sound ultrasound: comparison with proton density fat fraction assessed with Dixon MRI for fat content quantification of the lower extremity.European radiology · 2020Article
- Feasibility of MRI based extracellular volume fraction and partition coefficient measurements in thigh muscle.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Novel Muscle Imaging in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases-A Focus on Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography and Quantitative MRI.Frontiers in medicine · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the test-retest variability of both diffusion parameters and fat fraction (FF) estimates in normal muscle, and to assess differences in normal values between muscles in the thigh.
methods29 healthy volunteers (mean age 37 years, range 20-60 years, 17/29 males) completed the study. Magnetic resonance images of the mid-thigh were acquired using a stimulated echo acquisition mode-echoplanar imaging (STEAM-EPI) imaging sequence, to assess diffusion, and 2-point Dixon imaging, to assess FF. Imaging was repeated in 19 participants after a 30 min interval in order to assess test-retest variability of the measurements.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for test-retest variability were 0.99 [95% confidence interval, (CI): 0.98, 1] for FF, 0.94 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.97) for mean diffusivity and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.96) for fractional anisotropy (FA). FF was higher in the hamstrings than the quadriceps by a mean difference of 1.81% (95% CI:1.63, 2.00)%,
conclusionsThis study has shown excellent test-retest, variability in MR-based FF and diffusion measurements and demonstrated significant differences in these measures between hamstrings and quadriceps in the healthy thigh. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Test-retest variability is excellent for STEAM-EPI diffusion and 2-point Dixon-based FF measurements in the healthy muscle. Inter- and intraobserver variability were excellent for region of interest placement for STEAM-EPI diffusion and 2-point Dixon-based FF measurements in the healthy muscle. There are significant differences in FF and diffusion measurements between the hamstrings and quadriceps in the normal muscle.
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.