ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2022
Improved Brain MR Imaging from a Compact, Lightweight 3T Scanner with High-Performance Gradients.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient experience and acceptance of a lightweight, compact 3 Tesla MRI system.Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluation of a compact 3 T MRI scanner for patients with implanted devices.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2023Article
- Improved Brain MR Imaging from a Compact, Lightweight 3T Scanner with High-Performance Gradients.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA low-cryogen, compact 3T (C3T) MRI scanner with high-performance gradients capable of simultaneously achieving 80 mT/m gradient amplitude and 700 T/m/second slew rate has been in use to study research patients since March 2016 but has not been implemented in the clinical practice. PURPOSE: To compare head MRI examinations obtained with the C3T system and a conventional whole-body 3T (WB3T) scanner in seven parameters across five commonly used brain imaging sequences. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Thirty patients with a clinically indicated head MRI. SEQUENCE: 3T; T1 FLAIR, T1 MP-RAGE, 3D T2 FLAIR, T2 FSE, and DWI. ASSESSMENT: All patients tolerated the scans well. Three board-certified neuroradiologists scored the comparative quality of C3T and WB3T images in blinded fashion using a five-point Likert scale in terms of: signal-to-noise ratio, lesion conspicuity, motion artifact, gray/white matter contrast, cerebellar folia, susceptibility artifact, and overall quality. STATISTICAL TEST: Left-sided, right-sided, and two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test; Fisher's method. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe C3T system performed better than the WB3T in virtually all comparisons, except for motion artifacts for the T1 FLAIR and T1 MP-RAGE sequences, where the WB3T system was deemed better. When combining all sequences together, the C3T system outperformed the WB3T system in all image quality parameters evaluated, except for motion artifact (P = 0.13). DATA
conclusionThe C3T scanner provided better overall image quality for all sequences, and performed better in all individual categories, except for motion artifact on the T1 FLAIR and T1 MP-RAGE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.
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.