Trial reportAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Comparison of liver iron concentration calculated from R2* at 1.5 T and 3 T.
Trial report in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03743272 (Repeatability and Reproducibility of Multiparametric MRI), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Repeatability and Reproducibility of Multiparametric MRI (LiverMultiScan)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of hepatic iron quantification by MRI between 1.5 and 3 T, using different methods and conversion formulas.European radiology · 2026Article
- An objective measure of response on whole-body MRI in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy, external beam radiotherapy, and radium-223.The British journal of radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeR2*, a measurement obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used to estimate liver iron concentration (LIC). 3 T and 1.5 T scanners can be used but conversion of 3 T R2* to LIC is less well validated. In this study the aim was to compare 3 T-R2* LIC and 1.5 T-R2* LIC estimations to assess if they can be used interchangeably.
methodsThirty participants were scanned at both 1.5 T and 3 T. R2* was measured at both field strengths. 3 T R2* and 1.5 R2* were compared using linear regression and were converted to LIC using different calibration curves. Pearson's rho and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess correlation and agreement between 1.5 and 3 T LIC. Bland Altman plots were used to assess bias and limits of agreement.
resultsAll 1.5 T and 3 T LIC comparisons gave Pearson's rho of 0.99 (p < 0.001). ICC ranged from 0.83 (p = 0.005) to 0.96 (p < 0.001). Biases had magnitude of less than 0.2 mg/g dry weight.
conclusionAgreement and bias between 3 and 1.5 T-R2* LIC depended on the method used for conversion. There were instances when the agreement was excellent and bias was small, indicating that potentially 3 T-R2* LIC can be used alongside or instead of 1.5 T-R2* LIC but care needs to be taken over the conversion methods selected. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03743272, 16 November 2018.
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.