ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2021
Influence of motion correction on the visual analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion imaging.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveImage post-processing corrects for cardiac and respiratory motion (MoCo) during cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) stress perfusion. The study analyzed its influence on visual image evaluation. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-two patients with (suspected) coronary artery disease underwent a standard CMR stress perfusion exam during free-breathing. Image post-processing was performed without (non-MoCo) and with MoCo (image intensity normalization; motion extraction with iterative non-rigid registration; motion warping with the combined displacement field). Images were evaluated regarding the perfusion pattern (perfusion deficit, dark rim artifact, uncertain signal loss, and normal perfusion), the general image quality (non-diagnostic, imperfect, good, and excellent), and the reader's subjective confidence to assess the images (not confident, confident, very confident).
resultsFifty-three (non-MoCo) and 52 (MoCo) myocardial segments were rated as 'perfusion deficit', 113 vs. 109 as 'dark rim artifacts', 9 vs. 7 as 'uncertain signal loss', and 817 vs. 824 as 'normal'. Agreement between non-MoCo and MoCo was high with no diagnostic difference per-patient. The image quality of MoCo was rated more often as 'good' or 'excellent' (92 vs. 63%), and the diagnostic confidence more often as "very confident" (71 vs. 45%) compared to non-MoCo.
conclusionsThe comparison of perfusion images acquired during free-breathing and post-processed with and without motion correction demonstrated that both methods led to a consistent evaluation of the perfusion pattern, while the image quality and the reader's subjective confidence to assess the images were rated more favorably for MoCo.
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.