ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2022
Intracranial Blood Flow Quantification by Accelerated Dual-venc 4D Flow MRI: Comparison With Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the accuracy of cerebrovascular computational fluid dynamics modeling through time-resolved experimental validation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Observation of intracranial artery and venous sinus hemodynamics using compressed sensing-accelerated 4D flow MRI: performance at different acceleration factors.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDual-venc 4D flow MRI, recently introduced for the assessment of intracranial hemodynamics, may provide a promising complementary approach to well-established tools such as transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) and overcome some of their disadvantages. However, data comparing intracranial flow measures from dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD are lacking. PURPOSE: To compare cerebral blood flow velocity measures derived from dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD. STUDY TYPE: Prospective cohort. SUBJECTS: A total of 25 healthy participants (56 ± 4 years old, 44% female). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3 T/dual-venc 4D flow MRI using a time-resolved three-dimensional phase-contrast sequence with three-dimensional velocity encoding. ASSESSMENT: Peak velocity measurements in bilateral middle cerebral arteries (MCA) were quantified from dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD. The MRI data were quantified by two independent observers (S.M and Y.M.) and TCD was performed by a trained technician (A.L.M.). We assessed the agreement between 4D flow MRI and TCD measures, and the interobserver agreement of 4D flow MRI measurements. STATISTICAL TESTS: Peak velocity from MRI and TCD was compared using Bland-Altman analysis and coefficient of variance. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess MRI interobserver agreement. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThere was excellent interobserver agreement in dual-venc 4D flow MRI-based measurements of peak velocity in bilateral MCA (ICC = 0.97 and 0.96 for the left and right MCA, respectively). Dual-venc 4D flow MRI significantly underestimated peak velocity in the left and right MCA compared to TCD (bias = 0.13 [0.59, -0.33] m/sec and 0.15 [0.47, -0.17] m/sec, respectively). The coefficient of variance between dual-venc 4D flow MRI and TCD measurements was 26% for the left MCA and 22% for the right MCA. DATA
conclusionThere was excellent interobserver agreement for the assessment of MCA peak velocity using dual-venc 4D flow MRI, and ≤20% under-estimation compared with TCD. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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.