Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32306913›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2020

Performance of TGSE BLADE DWI compared with RESOLVE DWI in the diagnosis of cholesteatoma.

Yaru Sheng, Rujian Hong, Yan Sha, Zhongshuai Zhang, Kun Zhou, Caixia Fu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yaru ShengDepartment of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, China.
Rujian HongDepartment of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, China.
Yan ShaDepartment of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, China. cjr.shayan@vip.163.com.
Zhongshuai ZhangScientific Marketing, Siemens Healthcare, Shanghai, China.
Kun ZhouDepartment of Digitalization, Siemens Shenzhen Magnetic Resonance, Ltd., Shenzhen, China.
Caixia FuDepartment of Digitalization, Siemens Shenzhen Magnetic Resonance, Ltd., Shenzhen, China.
Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University · CNSiemens (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBased on its high resolution in soft tissue, MRI, especially diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), is increasingly important in the evaluation of cholesteatoma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of the 2D turbo gradient- and spin-echo (TGSE) diffusion-weighted (DW) pulse sequence with the BLADE trajectory technique in the diagnosis of cholesteatoma at 3 T and to qualitatively and quantitatively compare image quality between the TGSE BLADE and RESOLVE methods.

methodA total of 42 patients (23 males, 19 females; age range, 7-65 years; mean, 40.1 years) with surgically confirmed cholesteatoma in the middle ear were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent DWI (both a prototype TGSE BLADE DWI sequence and the RESOLVE DWI sequence) using a 3-T scanner with a 64-channel brain coil. Qualitative imaging parameters (imaging sharpness, geometric distortion, ghosting artifacts, and overall imaging quality) and quantitative imaging parameters (apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) were assessed for the two diffusion acquisition techniques by two independent radiologists.

resultA comparison of qualitative scores indicated that TGSE BLADE DWI produced less geometric distortion, fewer ghosting artifacts (P < 0.001) and higher image quality (P < 0.001) than were observed for RESOLVE DWI. A comparison of the evaluated quantitative image parameters between TGSE and RESOLVE showed that TGSE BLADE DWI produced a significantly lower SNR (P < 0.001) and higher parameter values (both contrast and CNR (P < 0.001)) than were found for RESOLVE DWI. The ADC (P < 0.001) was significantly lower for TGSE BLADE DWI (0.763 × 10

conclusionCompared with RESOLVE DWI, TGSE BLADE DWI significantly improved the image quality of cholesteatoma by reducing magnetic sensitive artifacts, distortion, and blurring. TGSE BLADE DWI is more valuable than RESOLVE DWI for the diagnosis of small-sized (2 mm) cholesteatoma lesions. However, TGSE BLADE DWI also has some disadvantages: the whole image intensity is slightly low, so that the anatomical details of the air-bone interface are not shown well, and this shortcoming should be improved in the future.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChildCholesteatoma, Middle EarDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultCholesteatomaMagnetic resonance imagingMiddle earRESOLVE DWITGSE BALDE DWI

Identifiers

PMID32306913
PMCPMC7168963
OpenAlexW3016759955

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.