ReviewDer Radiologe2022
[New clinical applications for low-field magnetic resonance imaging : Technical and physical aspects].
Review in Der Radiologe, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Advanced deep learning-based image reconstruction in lumbar spine MRI at 0.55 T - Effects on image quality and acquisition time in comparison to conventional deep learning-based reconstruction.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Image Quality of a Low-Field (0.55T) Knee MRI Protocol Using Deep Learning Image Reconstruction Compared with a Standard (1.5T) Knee MRI Protocol.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is experiencing a renaissance due to technical innovations. The new-generation devices offer new applications for imaging and a possible solution to increasing cost pressures in the healthcare system.
objectivesEffects of field strength on technique, physics, image acquisition, and diagnostic quality of examinations are presented.
methodsImportant basic physical parameters for image acquisition and quality are summarized. Initial clinical experience with a new 0.55 T low-field scanner is presented.
resultsField strengths that are lower than the currently used 1.5 T and 3 T field strengths are characterized by an expected lower signal-to-noise ratio in image acquisition. Whether this is a diagnostic limitation needs to be evaluated in studies, as there are several options to offset this perceived drawback, including increasing measurement time or artificial intelligence (AI) postprocessing techniques. In addition, it is necessary to meticulously investigate whether low-field systems allow diagnostically adequate image quality to be achieved in different body regions and different disease entities. Initial studies in our clinic are promising and show, for example, diagnostic quality without relevant loss of time for examinations of the lumbar spine. Advantages of low-field MRI include reduced susceptibility artifacts when imaging the lungs and in patients with metallic implants.
conclusionLow-field scanners offer a variety of new fields of application with field strength-related advantages. In most other clinical examination fields, at least diagnostic quality can be expected.
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.