Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32128653›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology experimental2020

Quantitative imaging: systematic review of perfusion/flow phantoms.

Marije E Kamphuis, Marcel J W Greuter, Riemer H J A Slart, Cornelis H Slump

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology experimental, 2020. 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
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. A Framework for Interpretability in Machine Learning for Medical Imaging.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marije E KamphuisMultimodality Medical Imaging M3i Group, Faculty of Science and Technology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, PO Box 217, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.e.kamphuis@utwente.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-5886-7684
Marcel J W GreuterRobotics and Mechatronics Group, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, and Computer Science, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Riemer H J A SlartMedical Imaging Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Cornelis H SlumpRobotics and Mechatronics Group, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, and Computer Science, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed at reviewing design and realisation of perfusion/flow phantoms for validating quantitative perfusion imaging (PI) applications to encourage best practices.

methodsA systematic search was performed on the Scopus database for "perfusion", "flow", and "phantom", limited to articles written in English published between January 1999 and December 2018. Information on phantom design, used PI and phantom applications was extracted.

resultsOf 463 retrieved articles, 397 were rejected after abstract screening and 32 after full-text reading. The 37 accepted articles resulted to address PI simulation in brain (n = 11), myocardial (n = 8), liver (n = 2), tumour (n = 1), finger (n = 1), and non-specific tissue (n = 14), with diverse modalities: ultrasound (n = 11), computed tomography (n = 11), magnetic resonance imaging (n = 17), and positron emission tomography (n = 2). Three phantom designs were described: basic (n = 6), aligned capillary (n = 22), and tissue-filled (n = 12). Microvasculature and tissue perfusion were combined in one compartment (n = 23) or in two separated compartments (n = 17). With the only exception of one study, inter-compartmental fluid exchange could not be controlled. Nine studies compared phantom results with human or animal perfusion data. Only one commercially available perfusion phantom was identified.

conclusionWe provided insights into contemporary phantom approaches to PI, which can be used for ground truth evaluation of quantitative PI applications. Investigators are recommended to verify and validate whether assumptions underlying PI phantom modelling are justified for their intended phantom application.

Indexed as

Perfusion ImagingPhantoms, ImagingAnimalsEquipment DesignHumansMicrocirculationPerfusion imagingPhantoms (imaging)Reference standards

Identifiers

PMID32128653
PMCPMC7054493
OpenAlexW3010919850

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.