ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2022
Repeatability of perfusion measurements in adult gliomas using pulsed and pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling MRI.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeatability and Reproducibility of Pseudocontinuous Arterial Spin-Labeling-Measured Brain Perfusion in Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Glioblastoma.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the repeatability of perfusion measures in gliomas using pulsed- and pseudo-continuous-arterial spin labelling (PASL, PCASL) techniques, and evaluate different regions-of-interest (ROIs) for relative tumour blood flow (rTBF) normalisation. MATERIALS AND
methodsRepeatability of cerebral blood flow (CBF) was measured in the Contralateral Normal Appearing Hemisphere (CNAH) and in brain tumours (aTBF). rTBF was normalised using both large/small ROIs from the CNAH. Repeatability was evaluated with intra-class-correlation-coefficient (ICC), Within-Coefficient-of-Variation (WCoV) and Coefficient-of-Repeatability (CR).
resultsPASL and PCASL demonstrated high reliability (ICC > 0.9) for CNAH-CBF, aTBF and rTBF. PCASL demonstrated a more stable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with a lower WCoV of the SNR than that of PASL (10.9-42.5% vs. 12.3-29.2%). PASL and PCASL showed higher WCoV in aTBF and rTBF than in CNAH CBF in WM and GM but not in the caudate, and higher WCoV for rTBF than for aTBF when normalised using a small ROI (PASL 8.1% vs. 4.7%, PCASL 10.9% vs. 7.9%, respectively). The lowest CR was observed for rTBF normalised with a large ROI. DISCUSSION: PASL and PCASL showed similar repeatability for the assessment of perfusion parameters in patients with primary brain tumours as previous studies based on volunteers. Both methods displayed reasonable WCoV in the tumour area and CNAH. PCASL's more stable SNR in small areas (caudate) is likely to be due to the longer post-labelling delays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34817780What 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.