ArticleEuropean radiology2022
T
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications of MR Finger printing derived T1 and T2 values in Adult brain: A Systematic review.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- The second decade of DTI in TBI part 1: a systematic review of mild TBI.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Multi-modal proton and sodium MRI for outcome prediction in mild traumatic brain injury.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the state of non-invasive imaging biomarkers for traumatic brain injury.Neurosurgical review · 2023Review
- Quantification of the Intrinsic T1 and T2 of Heschl's Gyri with MR Fingerprinting.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether MR fingerprinting (MRF)-based relaxation properties exhibit cross-sectional and prospective correlations with patient outcome and compare the results with those from DTI.
methodsClinical imaging, MRF, and DTI were acquired in patients (24 ± 10 days after injury (timepoint 1) and 90 ± 17 days after injury (timepoint 2)) and once in controls. Patient outcome was assessed with global functioning, symptom profile, and neuropsychological testing. ADC and fractional anisotropy (FA) from DTI and T
resultsData from 22 patients (38 ± 12 years; 17 women) and 18 controls (32 ± 8 years; 12 women) were analyzed. Fourteen patients (37 ± 12 years; 11 women) returned for timepoint 2, while two patients provided only timepoint 2 clinical outcome data. At timepoint 1, there were no differences between patients and controls in T
conclusionT KEY POINTS: • In a region-of-interest approach, FA, ADC, and T
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.