Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31340255›Full record

ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2019

Multimodal quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analysis with individualized postprocessing in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy and conventional visual inspection negative for epileptogenic lesions.

Lucas Giansante Abud, Tonicarlo Rodrigues Velasco, Carlos Ernesto Garrido Salmon, Americo Ceiki Sakamoto, Thiago Giansante Abud, Rodrigo Antonio Pessini, Daniel Giansante Abud, João Pereira Leite, Antonio Carlos Dos Santos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Lucas Giansante AbudDivisao de Neurorradiologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0002-3777-5753
Tonicarlo Rodrigues VelascoDepartamento de Neurologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0001-7756-8882
Carlos Ernesto Garrido SalmonDepartamento de Fisica e Matematica, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciencias e Letras de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0003-1441-1524
Americo Ceiki SakamotoDepartamento de Neurologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0002-1768-2357
Thiago Giansante AbudDepartamento de Diagnostico por Imagem, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0001-9918-9963
Rodrigo Antonio PessiniDivisao de Ciencias da Imagem e Fisica Medica, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0002-6915-2032
Daniel Giansante AbudDivisao de Neurorradiologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0002-6171-669X
João Pereira LeiteDepartamento de Neurologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0003-0558-3519
Antonio Carlos Dos SantosDivisao de Neurorradiologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0002-5502-4734

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApproximately one-third of candidates for epilepsy surgery have no visible abnormalities on conventional magnetic resonance imaging. This is extremely discouraging, as these patients have a less favorable prognosis. We aimed to evaluate the utility of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in patients with drug-resistant neocortical focal epilepsy and negative imaging.

methodsA prospective study including 46 patients evaluated through individualized postprocessing of five quantitative measures: cortical thickness, white and gray matter junction signal, relaxation rate, magnetization transfer ratio, and mean diffusivity. Scalp video-electroencephalography was used to suggest the epileptogenic zone. A volumetric fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequence was performed to aid visual inspection. A critical assessment of follow-up was also conducted throughout the study.

resultsIn the subgroup classified as having an epileptogenic zone, individualized postprocessing detected abnormalities within the region of electroclinical origin in 9.7% to 31.0% of patients. Abnormalities outside the epileptogenic zone were more frequent, up to 51.7%. In five patients initially included with negative imaging, an epileptogenic structural abnormality was identified when a new visual magnetic resonance imaging inspection was guided by information gleaned from postprocessing. In three patients, epileptogenic lesions were detected after visual evaluation with volumetric fluid-attenuated sequence guided by video electroencephalography.

conclusionAlthough quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analyses may suggest hidden structural lesions, caution is warranted because of the apparent low specificity of these findings for the epileptogenic zone. Conversely, these methods can be used to prevent visible lesions from being ignored, even in referral centers. In parallel, we need to highlight the positive contribution of the volumetric fluid-attenuated sequence.

Indexed as

AdultBrain MappingDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDrug Resistant EpilepsyElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingProspective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31340255
PMCPMC6636588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.