ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Comparison Between the Diagnostic Performance of 1.5 T and 3.0 T field Strengths for Detecting Deep Vein Thrombosis Using Magnetic Resonance Black-Blood Thrombus Imaging.
Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technique diagnoses DVT and classifies thrombus.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2022Article
- Deep Learning for Accurate Segmentation of Venous Thrombus from Black-Blood Magnetic Resonance Images: A Multicenter Study.BioMed research international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic resonance (MR) black-blood thrombus imaging (BTI) is an accurate diagnostic technique for detecting deep vein thrombosis (DVT) but to date there have been no studies comparing the diagnostic performance and consistency of this technique at different field strengths. In this study, we evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of BTI for detecting DVT at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths.
methodsA total of 40 patients with DVT were enrolled in this study from November 2015 up to October 2018. All patients underwent BTI, a contrast-free T1-weighted MR imaging technique for detecting DVT, and contrast-enhanced MR venography (CE-MRV) at 1.5 T or 3.0 T field strengths. The MR data analyses used 1160 segments from the venous lumen of the 40 patients. The signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio between thrombus and muscle/lumen were calculated to compare BTI at 1.5 T or 3.0 T to determine the image performance for thrombus detection at 1.5 T or 3.0 T. Two physicians blinded to the study evaluated all BTI images and calculated the overall sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and diagnostic consistency at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. These images and values were compared to control CE-MRV images that had been obtained by 2 senior physicians and used as reference standards. In addition, the reliability and consistency of diagnoses between observers were also evaluated.
resultsTwo study-blind physicians reviewed all BTI images to diagnose thrombus and to determine SE, SP, PPV, NPV, and accuracy. There were no statistical differences in SE, SP, PPV, NPV, or accuracy between the 1.5 T and 3.0 T groups.
conclusionsBlack-blood thrombus imaging has high SE, SP, and accuracy for DVT diagnosis both at 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths. This noninvasive diagnostic technique, which does not require the use of contrast agents, can be widely used in the clinical screening of DVT and follow-up after treatment.
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.