ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2024
An optimized 1.5 Tesla MRI protocol of the brachial plexus.
Article in The neuroradiology journal, 2024. 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.
- A Potential Pitfall in Brachial Plexus Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Better Blood Vessel Suppression Can Lead to Lesion Suppression.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026Article
- Brachial Plexopathies: A Comprehensive Radiologic Method Integrating Ultrasound and MRI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCreating an effective MRI protocol for examining the brachial plexus poses significant challenges, and despite the abundance of protocols in the literature, there is a lack of reference standards for basic sequences and essential parameters needed for replication. The aim of this study is to establish a reproducible 1.5 T brachial plexus imaging protocol, including patient positioning, coil selection, imaging planes, and essential sequence parameters.
methodsWe systematically investigated MRI sequences, testing each parameter through in vivo experiments, examining their effects on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), visual quality scores, and acquisition time. Sequences were refined based on optimal quality and timing scores. The final protocol was tested on scanners from two other vendors for reliability.
resultsThe final protocol included a combination of 2D turbo-spin-echo and 3D SPACE T1, SPACE STIR, and VIBE DIXON sequences. Recommendations for imaging planes, phase encoding, field of view, TR, TE, resolution, number of slices, slice thickness, fat and blood suppression, and acceleration strategies are provided. The protocol was successfully translated to other vendor's scanners with comparable quality.
conclusionWe present an optimized protocol detailing the essential parameters for reproducibility. Our comprehensive list of experiments describes the impact of each parameter on image quality and scan time, addressing common artifacts and potential solutions. This protocol can benefit both young radiologists new to the field and experienced professionals seeking to refine their existing protocols.
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.