Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35416533›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2022

Brain pathological changes during neurodegenerative diseases and their identification methods: How does QSM perform in detecting this process?

Farzaneh Nikparast, Zohreh Ganji, Mohammad Danesh Doust, Reyhane Faraji, Hoda Zare

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Farzaneh NikparastMedical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Zohreh GanjiMedical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Mohammad Danesh DoustMedical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Reyhane FarajiMedical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Hoda ZareMedical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Zareh@mums.ac.ir.
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The presence of iron is essential for many biological processes in the body. But sometimes, for various reasons, the amount of iron deposition in different areas of the brain increases, which leads to problems related to the nervous system. Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) is one of the newest magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based methods for assessing iron accumulation in target areas. This Narrative Review article aims to evaluate the performance of QSM compared to other methods of assessing iron deposition in the clinical field. Based on the results, we introduced related basic definitions, some neurodegenerative diseases, methods of examining iron deposition in these diseases, and their advantages and disadvantages. This article states that the QSM method can be introduced as a new, reliable, and non-invasive technique for clinical evaluations.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseIronMagnetic susceptibilityQuantitative susceptibility mapping

Identifiers

PMID35416533
PMCPMC9008086
OpenAlexW4223456237

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.