ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients: intraindividual comparison of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal imaging of acquired aortic diseases: clinical efficacy, comparative analysis, and future perspectives.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Advances in Cardiovascular Multimodality Imaging in Patients with Marfan Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessment of the thoracic aorta after aortic root replacement and/or ascending aortic surgery using 3D relaxation-enhanced angiography without contrast and triggering.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Highly accelerated, Dixon-based non-contrast MR angiography versus high-pitch CT angiography.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Article
- Contrast-free postoperative imaging of the pulmonary arteries: Intraindividual comparison of relaxation-enhanced angiography without contrast and triggering and time-resolved contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the accuracy and precision of 3D-Dixon and 2D-SSFP MR-imaging for assessment of aortic diameter in Marfan patients.
methodsThis prospective single-center study investigated respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP non-contrast MR-imaging at 3 T in 47 Marfan patients (36.0 ± 13.2 years, 28♀,19♂). Two radiologists performed individual diameter measurements at five levels of the thoracic aorta and evaluated image quality on a four-grade scale (1 = poor, 4 = excellent) and artifacts (1 = severe, 4 = none). Aortic root diameters acquired by echocardiography served as a reference standard. Intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analyses, F-test, t-test, and regression analyses were used to assess agreement between observers and methods.
resultsGreatest aortic diameters were observed at the level of the sinuses of Valsalva (SOV) for 3D-Dixon (38.2 ± 6.8 mm) and 2D-SSFP (38.3 ± 7.1 mm) (p = 0.53). Intra- and interobserver correlation of diameter measurements was excellent at all aortic levels for both 3D-Dixon (r = 0.94-0.99 and r = 0.94-0.98) and 2D-SSFP (r = 0.96-1.00 and r = 0.95-0.99). 3D-Dixon-derived and 2D-SSFP-derived diameter measurements at the level of the SOV revealed a strong correlation with echocardiographic measurements (r = 0.92, p < 0.001 and r = 0.93, p < 0.001, respectively). The estimated mean image quality at the level of SOV was higher for 2D-SSFP compared to that for 3D-Dixon (3.3 (95%-CI: 3.1-3.5) vs. 2.9 (95%-CI: 2.7-3.1)) (p < 0.001). Imaging artifacts were less at all aortic levels for 3D-Dixon compared to 2D-SSFP (3.4-3.8 vs. 2.8-3.1) (all p < 0.002).
conclusionRespiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP MR-imaging provide accurate and precise aortic diameter measurements. We recommend 3D-Dixon imaging for monitoring of aortic diameter in Marfan patients due to fewer imaging artifacts and the possibility of orthogonal multiplanar reformations of the aortic root. KEY POINTS: • Respiratory-gated 3D-Dixon and breath-hold 2D-SSFP imaging provide accurate and precise aortic diameter measurements in patients suffering from Marfan syndrome. • Imaging artifacts are stronger in 2D-SFFP imaging than in 3D-Dixon imaging. • We recommend 3D-Dixon imaging for monitoring of aortic diameter in Marfan patients due to fewer imaging artifacts and the possibility of orthogonal multiplanar reformations.
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.