Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31298948›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019

Normal values and test-retest variability of stimulated-echo diffusion tensor imaging and fat fraction measurements in the muscle.

Matthew Farrow, Andrew J Grainger, Ai Lyn Tan, Maya H Buch, Paul Emery, John P Ridgway, Thorsten Feiweier, Steven F Tanner, John Biglands

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Matthew Farrow1Leeds institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
Andrew J Grainger1Leeds institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
Ai Lyn Tan1Leeds institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
Maya H Buch1Leeds institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
Paul Emery1Leeds institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
John P Ridgway2NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Thorsten Feiweier4Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Steven F Tanner2NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
John Biglands2NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health ICA-CL-2016-02-017
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultDiffusion Tensor ImagingEcho-Planar ImagingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalProspective StudiesReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsThighYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31298948
PMCPMC6732910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.