ArticleBMC medical imaging2020
Validation of PET/MRI attenuation correction methodology in the study of brain tumours.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Update on the Use of PET/MRI Contrast Agents and Tracers in Brain Oncology: A Systematic Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2022Pooled it
- A review of PET attenuation correction methods for PET-MR.EJNMMI physics · 2023Review
- EANM procedure guidelines for brain PET imaging using [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare proton density weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) zero echo time (ZTE) and head atlas attenuation correction (AC) to the reference standard computed tomography (CT) based AC for
methodsA retrospective cohort of 14 patients with suspected or confirmed brain tumour and
resultsZTE-AC demonstrated narrower SD and 95% CI (Bland-Altman) than atlas-AC in the hotspot analysis for all groups (ZTE overall ≤ 2.84, - 1.41 to 1.70; metal ≤ 1.67, - 3.00 to 2.20; non-metal ≤ 3.04, - 0.96 to 3.38; Atlas overall ≤ 4.56, - 1.05 to 3.83; metal ≤ 3.87, - 3.81 to 4.64; non-metal ≤ 4.90, - 1.68 to 5.86). The mean bias for both ZTE-AC and atlas-AC was ≤ 2.4% compared to CT-AC. In the metal region analysis, ZTE-AC demonstrated a narrower mean bias range-closer to zero-and narrower SD and 95% CI (ZTE 0.21-0.48, ≤ 2.50, - 1.70 to 2.57; Atlas 0.56-1.54, ≤ 4.01, - 1.81 to 4.89). The mean bias for both ZTE-AC and atlas-AC was within 1.6%. A perfect correlation (Pearson correlation) was found for both ZTE-AC and atlas-AC compared to CT-AC in the hotspot and metal analysis (ZTE ρ 1.00, p < 0.0001; atlas ρ 1.00, p < 0.0001). An almost perfect intraclass correlation coefficient for absolute agreement was found between Atlas-, ZTE and CT maps for maxSUR and meanSUR values in all the analyses (ICC > 0.99).
conclusionsBoth ZTE and atlas-AC showed a good performance against CT-AC in patients with brain tumour.
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.