ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2022
Evaluating Compressed SENSE (CS) MRI Metal Artifact Reduction Using Pig L-Spine Phantom and Transplant Patients: Focused on the CS-SEMAC (SPIR), mDixon(O-MAR) and STIR Techniques.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the clinical usefulness of the images obtained after applying mDixon (O-MAR), CS-SEMAC (SPIR), and STIR techniques to Pig L-Spine Phantom and transplant patients according to the difference in the reduction in metal artifacts and provides the optimal MAR image technique. This study was conducted with Phantom and 30 transplant patients who had an implant on the L-Spine (22 men, 8 women, mean age: 64.2 ± 12.98). All data analyzed were evaluated, using Philips Ingenia 3.0T CX. As pulse sequences, applied to the analysis, mDixon (O-MAR), CS-SEMAC (SPIR), and STIR were used. As the coil used to obtain data, the dStream Head Spine Coil was used. When tested directly applying to the transplant patients in the conditions the same as for the Phantom, as for the MAR effect of T1 and T2 images, the SNR value showed the highest effect on the increase in the signal in T1, T2 CS-SEMAC (SPIR), followed by mDixon (O-MAR) and STIR, which was the same result as the Phantom (p < 0.05). In addition, in the results of the histogram measurement in both of the subjects, Phantom and transplant patients, the count of T1, the T2 Sagittal image was the highest in T1, T2 STIR, followed by T1, T2 mDixon (O-MAR) and T1, and T2 CS-SEMAC (SPIR). As a result of the qualitative analysis, the quality was the best in T2 CS-SEMAC(SPIR) (c), followed by mDixon (O-MAR) (b) and T2 STIR (a). In conclusion, when the MAR effect on the Pig L-spine Phantom and Transplant patients was compared, it was noted that the CS-SEMAC (SPIR) technique was the most excellent in the following order: STIR < mDixon (O-MAR) < CS-SEMAC (SPIR).
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.