ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Reliability of Gradient-Echo Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Lumbar Muscles: Phantom and Clinical Studies.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- MR Elastography-Based Slip Interface Imaging for Assessment of Myofascial Interface Mobility in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Sarcopenia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: an imaging review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Advances in mechanical assessments of in vivo human lumbar spine tissues with noninvasive imaging techniques.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Use and applicability of magnetic resonance elastography of the lumbar spine in adults: a scoping review.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Spleen Stiffness in Young Healthy Volunteers Using Magnetic Resonance Elastography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) has been used to successfully characterize the mechanical behavior of healthy and diseased muscles, but no study has been performed to investigate the reliability of MRE on lumbar muscles. The objective of this work was to determine the reliability of MRE techniques on lumbar muscles in both ex vivo phantom and in vivo human studies. In this study, fresh porcine leg muscles were used in the phantom study, and 80 healthy adults (38.6 ± 11.2 years, 40 women) were recruited in the human study. Five repeated stiffness maps were obtained from both the phantom and human muscles by using a gradient-echo MRE sequence with a pneumatic vibration on a 1.5 T MR scanner. The technical failure rate, coefficient of variation (CV), and quality score were assessed to evaluate the reliability of MRE, respectively. Analysis of variance was performed to compare the stiffness between different lumbar muscles, and the difference was significant if p < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction. The results showed that the MRE achieved a zero technical failure rate and a low CV of stiffness (6.24 ± 1.41%) in the phantom muscles. However, in the human study, the MRE exhibited high CVs of stiffness (21.57%−25.24%) in the lumbar muscles, and the technical failure rate was higher in psoas muscles (60.0−66.3% in) than in paraspinal muscles (0.0−2.5%). Further, higher quality scores were noticed in paraspinal muscles (7.31−7.71) than those in psoas muscles (1.83−2.06). In conclusion, the MRE was a reliable technique to investigate the mechanical property of lumbar muscles, but it was less reliable to assess stiffness in psoas muscles than paraspinal muscles.
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.