ArticleActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)2024
Dixon T2 imaging of vertebral bone edema: reliability and comparison with short tau inversion recovery.
Article in Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), 2024. 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.
- STIR or T2-Dixon? A false dilemma in musculoskeletal MRI.European radiology · 2026Article
- Development of a risk scoring system for surgical site infection after lumbar surgery using Dixon MRI and clinical parameters.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Modic Changes as Biomarkers for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Generating synthetic high-resolution spinal STIR and T1w images from T2w FSE and low-resolution axial Dixon.European radiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Fat Suppression Sequences T2 Weighted Two-Point Dixon and Short-Tau Inversion Recovery in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Lumbar Spine: An Observational Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is uncertain whether T2-weighted Dixon water images (DixonT2w) and short tau inversion recovery (STIR) are interchangeable when evaluating vertebral bone edema, or if one method is superior or visualizes the edema differently. PURPOSE: To compare image quality and Modic change (MC)-related edema between DixonT2w and STIR and estimate inter-observer reliability for MC edema on DixonT2w. MATERIAL AND
methodsConsecutive patients (n = 120) considered for the Antibiotics in Modic changes (AIM) trial underwent lumbar 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging with two-point DixonT2w and STIR. Two radiologists assessed MC-related high-signal lesions on DixonT2w and compared image quality and lesion extent with STIR. Cohen's kappa and mean of differences ± limits of agreement were calculated.
resultsFat suppression and artefacts were similar on DixonT2w and STIR in 116 of 120 (97%) patients. Lesion conspicuity was similar in 88, better on STIR in 10, and better on DixonT2w in 9 of 107 patients with MC-related high-signal lesions. Contrast-to-noise ratio for STIR versus DixonT2w was 19.1 versus 17.1 (mean of differences 2.0 ± 8.2). Of 228 lesions L4-S1, 215 (94%) had similar extent on DixonT2w and STIR, 11 were smaller/undetected on STIR, and two were smaller/undetected on DixonT2w. Lesions missed on STIR (n = 9) or DixonT2w (n = 1) had a weak signal increase on the other sequence (≤17%; 0% = vertebral body, 100% = cerebrospinal fluid). Inter-observer reliability (mean kappa L4-S1) was very good for presence (0.87), moderate for height (0.44), and good for volume (0.63) of lesions on DixonT2w.
conclusionDixonT2w provided similar visualization of MC-related vertebral edema as STIR.
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.