ArticleNeuroradiology2020
Silent susceptibility-weighted angiography to detect hemorrhagic lesions in the brain: a clinical and phantom study.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of venous angiomas on susceptibility enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with seizures.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2025Article
- Quiet Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging of the Brain for Pediatric Patients with Moyamoya Disease.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness of silent susceptibility-weighted angiography (sSWAN), a new imaging technique with lower acoustic noise, with conventional susceptibility-weighted angiography (cSWAN) in the detection of intracranial hemorrhagic lesions.
methodsWe measured the acoustic and background noise during sSWAN and cSWAN imaging and calculated the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the phantom consisting of eight chambers with different concentrations of superparamagnetic iron oxide. In the clinical study, we calculated the CNRs of hemorrhagic lesions in 15 patients and evaluated the images for conspicuity and artifact on each sequence and scored them on a 4-point scale. We also evaluated whether hypointense areas observed on sSWAN or cSWAN increased in size from those on T2*-weighted imaging (T2*-WI).
resultsAcoustic noise for sSWAN (57.9 ± 0.32 dB [background noise 51.3 dB]) was significantly less than that for cSWAN (89.0 ± 0.22 dB [background noise 50.9 dB]). The CNRs of phantoms for sSWAN were slightly but not significantly lower than those for cSWAN (P = 0.18). The CNRs of hemorrhagic lesions did not show significant differences between sSWAN and cSWAN (P = 0.17). There were no significant differences between sSWAN and cSWAN with respect to the scores for conspicuity, artifact, and change in size of hypointense areas from T2*-WI.
conclusionsSWAN is equivalent to cSWAN with respect to the image quality for the detection of hemorrhagic lesions but has lower acoustic noise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31696239What 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.