ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
4D-Flow Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Sequence for Aortic Assessment: Multi-Vendor and Multi-Magnetic Field Reproducibility in Healthy Volunteers.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of 4D Flow MRI-derived Wall Shear Stress in Aortic Disease: A Comprehensive Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Inter-site comparability of 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurements in healthy traveling volunteers-a multi-site and multi-magnetic field strength study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFour-dimensional (4D) flow cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) represents an emerging technique for non-invasive evaluation of the aortic flow. The aim of this study was to investigate a 4D-flow CMR sequence for the assessment of thoracic aorta comparing different vendors and different magnetic fields of MR scanner in fifteen healthy volunteers.
methodsCMR was performed on three different MRI scanners: one at 1.5 T and two at 3 T. Flow parameters and planar wall shear stress (WSS) were extracted from six transversal planes along the full thoracic aorta by three operators. Inter-vendor comparability as well as scan-rescan, intra- and interobserver reproducibility were examined.
resultsA high heterogeneity was found in the comparisons for each operator and for each scanner in the six transversal planes analysis (Friedman rank-sum test;
conclusionsOur results suggest that standardized procedures have to be defined to make more comparable and reproducible 4D-flow parameters and mainly, clinical impactfulness. Further studies on sequences development are needed to validate 4D-flow MRI assessment across vendors and magnetic fields also compared to a missing gold standard.
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.