ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Quantitative MR-Neurography at 3.0T: Inter-Scanner Reproducibility.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parsonage-Turner syndrome: current perspectives on etiology, diagnosis, and management.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Paeoniflorin as a candidate disease-modifying therapy for diabetic peripheral neuropathy: mechanisms, exposure challenges, and translational priorities.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Proton Density of the Dorsal Root Ganglia in Classical Fabry Disease: MRI Correlates of Small Fibre Neuropathy.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Quantitative magnetic resonance neurography in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: A longitudinal study over 6 years.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2024Article
- Multiparametric Quantitative MRI of Peripheral Nerves in the Leg: A Reliability Study.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative MR-neurography (MRN) is increasingly applied, however, the impact of the MR-scanner on the derived parameters is unknown. Here, we used different 3.0T MR scanners and applied comparable MR-sequences in order to quantify the inter-scanner reproducibility of various MRN parameters of the sciatic nerve.
methodsTen healthy volunteers were prospectively examined at three different 3.0T MR scanners and underwent MRN of their sciatic nerve using comparable imaging protocols including diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and T2 relaxometry. Subsequently, inter-scanner agreement was assessed for seven different parameters by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the standard error of measurement (SEM).
resultsAssessment of inter-scanner reliability revealed good to excellent agreement for T2 (ICC: 0.846) and the quantitative DTI parameters, such as fractional anisotropy (FA) (ICC: 0.876), whereas moderate agreement was observed for proton spin density (PD) (ICC: 0.51). Analysis of variance identified significant inter-scanner differences for several parameters, such as FA (
conclusionThis study quantifies the measurement imprecision for peripheral nerve DTI and T2 relaxometry, which is associated with the use of different MR scanners. The here presented values may serve as an orientation of the possible scanner-associated fluctuations of MRN biomarkers, which can occur under similar conditions.
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.