Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33315165›Full record

ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2021

Comparing multiband and singleband EPI in NODDI at 3 T: what are the implications for reproducibility and study sample sizes?

Samira Bouyagoub, Nicholas G Dowell, Matt Gabel, Mara Cercignani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Repeatability of neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging in patients with traumatic brain injury.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    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

4 authors.

Samira BouyagoubClinical Imaging Sciences Centre, Department of Neuroscience, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RR, UK. s.bouyagoub@bsms.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5046-8264
Nicholas G DowellClinical Imaging Sciences Centre, Department of Neuroscience, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RR, UK.
Matt GabelClinical Imaging Sciences Centre, Department of Neuroscience, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RR, UK.
Mara CercignaniClinical Imaging Sciences Centre, Department of Neuroscience, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RR, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe reproducibility of Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) metrics from time-saving multiband (MB) EPI compared with singleband (SB) has not been considered. This study aims to evaluate the reproducibility of NODDI parameters from SB and MB acquisitions, determine the agreement between acquisitions and estimate the sample sizes required to detect between-group change.

methodsBrain diffusion MRI data were acquired using SB and MB (acceleration factors 2 (MB2) and 3 (MB3)) on 8 healthy subjects on 2 separate visits. NODDI maps of isotropic volume fraction (FISO), neurite density (NDI) and orientation dispersion index (ODI) were estimated. Region-of-interest analysis was performed; variability across subjects and visits was measured using coefficients of variation (CoV). Intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to assess reproducibility and detect any systematic bias between SB, MB2 and MB3. Power calculations were used to determine sample sizes required to detect group differences.

resultsBoth NDI and ODI were reproducible between visits; however, FISO was variable. All parameters were not reproducible across methods; a systematic bias was observed with the derived values decreasing as the MB factor increases. The number of subjects needed to detect a between-group change is not significantly different between methods; however, ODI needs considerably higher sample sizes than NDI.

conclusionsBoth SB and MB yield highly reproducible NDI and ODI measures, but direct comparison of these parameters between methods is complicated by systematic differences that exist between the two approaches.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeuritesAdultCerebrospinal FluidFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeYoung AdultDiffusion MRIMultiband EPINODDIReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID33315165
PMCPMC8338814

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.