ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Reliability of Endolymphatic Hydrops Qualitative Assessment in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Magnetic resonance imaging research progress of hydropic ear disease].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Review
- Hydrops regression after vestibular denervation - longitudinal magnetic resonance study in patients with severe Meniere's disease treated with vestibular neurectomy.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2024Article
- Endolymphatic Hydrops Magnet Resonance Imaging in Ménière's Disease Patients after Cochlea Implantation.Brain sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to compare the consistency of MRI interpretation of endolymphatic hydrops qualitative assessment of inner ear structures performed by independent observers. MRI with a delayed post-contrast 3D-FLAIR sequence was performed to visualize EH in patients suspected of having or diagnosed with MD. The scans were analyzed independently by three observers. In total, 220 ears were evaluated and, of these, 75 had definite MD, five probable MD, 67 with other Menieriform symptoms, and 73 were asymptomatic. Significant differences in cochlear endolymphatic hydrops (CoEH) grading between all observers were observed. On the Barath scale of vestibular endolymphatic hydrops (VEH), differences were found between the radiologists and otorhinolaryngologist in grading. No differences were noted in VEH on the Bernaerts scale and increased perilymphatic enhancement. Our study showed that evaluation of vestibular endolymphatic hydrops is repeatable between observers and easy to learn. It proved that Bernaerts' modification increased the sensitivity of EH diagnosis. Both parameters, CoEH and VEH, may serve as a differentiation method of EH from normal ears. The distinction between normal and hydropic ears is much easier to perform than EH grading. Therefore, it may be used to diagnose MD rather than EH staging.
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.