ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2022
Free-breathing MR elastography of the lungs: An in vivo study.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Venous Congestion in Heart Failure: A Review of Splanchnic, Cardiac, and Pulmonary Ultrasound: Part 2: Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Shear Wave.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Magnetic Resonance Elastography and Computational Modeling Identify Heterogeneous Lung Biomechanical Properties during Cystic Fibrosis.Research square · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLung stiffness alters with many diseases; therefore, several MR elastography (MRE) studies were performed earlier to investigate the stiffness of the right lung during breathhold at residual volume and total lung capacity. The aims of this study were 1) to estimate shear stiffness of the lungs using MRE under free breathing and demonstrate the measurements' repeatability and reproducibility, and 2) to compare lung stiffness under free breathing to breathhold and as a function of age and gender.
methodsTwenty-five healthy volunteers were scanned on a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner. Spin-echo dual-density spiral and a spin-echo EPI MRE sequences were used to measure shear stiffness of the lungs during free breathing and breathhold at midpoint of tidal volume, respectively. Concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses were performed to determine the repeatability and reproducibility of the spin-echo dual-density spiral-derived shear stiffness. Repeated measures analyses of variances were used to investigate differences in shear stiffness between spin-echo dual-density spiral and spin-echo EPI, right and left lungs, males and females, and different age groups.
resultsFree-breathing MRE sequence was highly repeatable and reproducible (concordance correlation coefficient > 0.86 for both lungs). Lung stiffness was significantly lower in breathhold than in free breathing (P < .001), which can be attributed to potential stress relaxation of lung parenchyma or breathhold inconsistencies. However, there was no significant difference between different age groups (P = .08). The left lung showed slightly higher stiffness values than the right lung (P = .14). There is no significant difference in lung stiffness between genders.
conclusionThis study demonstrated the feasibility of free-breathing lung MRE with excellent repeatability and reproducibility. Stiffness changes with age and during the respiratory cycle. However, gender does not influence lungs stiffness.
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.