ArticleSkeletal radiology2022
Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cervical foraminal stenosis: comparison of 3D T2 SPACE with sagittal oblique 2D T2 TSE.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic utility of 3D MRI sequences in the assessment of central, recess and foraminal stenoses of the spine: a systematic review.Skeletal radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of different compression locations in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Clinical Correlation of Oblique Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Cervical Foraminal Stenosis.Cureus · 2025Article
- Demonstration of transverse ligament on 3D SPACE MRI in whiplash-associated disorder and nontraumatic conditions.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024Article
- An optimized 1.5 Tesla MRI protocol of the brachial plexus.The neuroradiology journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe oblique orientation of the cervical neural foramina challenges the implementation of a short MRI protocol with concurrent excellent visualization of the spine. While sagittal oblique T2-weighted sequences permit good evaluation of the cervical neuroforamina, all segments may not be equally well depicted on a single sequence and conspicuity of foraminal stenosis may be limited. 3D T2-weighted sequences can be reformatted in arbitrary planes, including the sagittal oblique. We set out to compare 3D T2w SPACE sequences with sagittal oblique reformations and sagittal oblique 2D T2w TSE sequences for the evaluation of cervical foraminal visibility and stenosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty consecutive patients who underwent MRI of the cervical spine with sagittal oblique 2D T2w TSE and 3D T2w SPACE sequences were included. Image homogeneity of the sequences was evaluated. Imaging sets were assessed for structure visibility and foraminal stenosis by two independent readers. Results of the sequences were compared by Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests. Interreader agreement was evaluated by weighted κ.
resultsVisibility of most structures was rated good to excellent on both sequences (mean visibility scores ≥ 4.5 of 5), though neuroforaminal contents were better seen on sagittal oblique T2w TSE (mean scores 4.1-4.6 vs. 3.1-4.1 on 3D T2w SPACE, p < 0.01). Stenosis grades were comparable between sequences (mean 1.1-2.6 of 4), with slightly higher values for 3D T2w SPACE at some levels (difference ≤ 0.3 points).
conclusion3D T2w SPACE is comparable with sagittal oblique 2D T2w TSE in the evaluation of cervical neural foramina.
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.