Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35044717›Full record

ReviewJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2022

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography for Three-Dimensional Bone Imaging of Musculoskeletal Pathologies: A Review.

Mateusz C Florkow, Koen Willemsen, Vasco V Mascarenhas, Edwin H G Oei, Marijn van Stralen, Peter R Seevinck

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 110 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
36.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Imaging skins: stretchable Gd2O2S:Tb X-ray detectors for image-guided surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mateusz C FlorkowImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2520-7705
Koen WillemsenDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8237-6321
Vasco V MascarenhasMusculoskeletal Imaging Unit, Imaging Center, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal.
Edwin H G OeiDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3727-3427
Marijn van StralenImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter R SeevinckImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLErasmus MC · NLHospital da Luz · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly utilized as a radiation-free alternative to computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis and treatment planning of musculoskeletal pathologies. MR imaging of hard tissues such as cortical bone remains challenging due to their low proton density and short transverse relaxation times, rendering bone tissues as nonspecific low signal structures on MR images obtained from most sequences. Developments in MR image acquisition and post-processing have opened the path for enhanced MR-based bone visualization aiming to provide a CT-like contrast and, as such, ease clinical interpretation. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies comparing MR and CT imaging for diagnostic and treatment planning purposes in orthopedic care, with a special focus on selective bone visualization, bone segmentation, and three-dimensional (3D) modeling. This review discusses conventional gradient-echo derived techniques as well as dedicated short echo time acquisition techniques and post-processing techniques, including the generation of synthetic CT, in the context of 3D and specific bone visualization. Based on the reviewed literature, it may be concluded that the recent developments in MRI-based bone visualization are promising. MRI alone provides valuable information on both bone and soft tissues for a broad range of applications including diagnostics, 3D modeling, and treatment planning in multiple anatomical regions, including the skull, spine, shoulder, pelvis, and long bones. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalPelvisSkullbone and bonescomparative reviewCTdiagnostic imagingjointsMRI

Identifiers

PMID35044717
PMCPMC9305220
OpenAlexW4206781950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.