ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2020
Measuring extracellular volume fraction by MRI: First verification of values given by clinical sequences.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative myocardial perfusion during stress using CMR is impaired in healthy Middle Eastern immigrants without CV risk factors.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of the Multimapping technique for simultaneous myocardial TFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Measuring extracellular volume fraction by MRI: First verification of values given by clinical sequences.Magnetic resonance 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo verify MR measurements of myocardial extracellular volume fraction (ECV) based on clinically applicable T1-mapping sequences against ECV measurements by radioisotope tracer in pigs and to relate the results to those obtained in volunteers.
methodsBetween May 2016 and March 2017, 8 volunteers (25 ± 4 years, 3 female) and 8 pigs (4 female) underwent ECV assessment with SASHA, MOLLI5(3b)3, MOLLI5(3s)3, and MOLLI5s(3s)3s. Myocardial ECV was measured independently in pigs using a radioisotope tracer method.
resultsIn pigs, ECV in normal myocardium was not different between radioisotope (average ± standard deviation; 19 ± 2%) and SASHA (21 ± 2%; P = 0.086). ECV was higher by MOLLI5(3b)3 (26 ± 2%), MOLLI5(3s)3 (25 ± 2%), and MOLLI5s(3s)3s (25 ± 2%) compared with SASHA or radioisotope (P ≤ 0.001 for all). ECV in volunteers was higher by MOLLI5(3b)3 (26 ± 3%) and MOLLI5(3s)3 (26 ± 3%) than by SASHA (22 ± 3%; P = 0.022 and P = 0.033). No difference was found between MOLLI5s(3s)3s (25 ± 3%) and SASHA (P = 0.225). Native T1 of blood and myocardium as well as postcontrast T1 of myocardium was consistently lower using MOLLI compared with SASHA. ECV increased over time as measured by MOLLI5(3b)3 and MOLLI5(3s)3 for pigs (0.08% and 0.07%/min; P = 0.004 and P = 0.013) and by MOLLI5s(3s)3s for volunteers (0.07%/min; P = 0.032) but did not increase as measured by SASHA.
conclusionClinically available MOLLI and SASHA techniques can be used to accurately estimate ECV in normal myocardium where MOLLI-sequences show minor overestimation driven by underestimation of postcontrast T1 when compared with SASHA. The timing of imaging after contrast administration affected the measurement of ECV using some variants of the MOLLI sequence.
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.