ArticleAcademic radiology2024
Technical Success and Reliability of Magnetic Resonance Elastography in Patients with Hepatic Iron Overload.
Article in Academic radiology, 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.
- CT/MRI technical pitfalls for diagnosis and treatment response assessment using LI-RADS and how to optimize.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Feasibility and performance of spin-echo EPI MR elastography at 3 Tesla for staging hepatic fibrosis in the presence of hepatic iron overload.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the technical success rate and stiffness measurement reliability of two specific hepatic magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) sequences dedicated to solving susceptibility artifacts in patients with various degrees of hepatic iron overload. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-seven patients with iron-overloaded liver confirmed by R2* value measurement who underwent two-dimensional (2D) spin-echo (SE) MRE and 2D SE-echo-planar-imaging (EPI) MRE were reviewed retrospectively. According to four categories based on R2* value (mild, moderate, severe elevation, and extremely severe iron overload), we compared the success rate, quality score, and liver stiffness of the two sequences. In addition, Spearman's correlation was performed to evaluate the relationship between the R2* value and liver stiffness.
resultsThe overall success rates of SE MRE and SE-EPI MRE in patients with hepatic iron overload were 91.89% and 78.38%, respectively, and 100% and 78.57%, respectively, for severe elevation iron overload. In all patients, the MRE quality scores were 54 and 48 for SE MRE and SE-EPI MRE, respectively (P = 0.107). There were no significant differences in liver stiffness measurements between the two MRE methods in patients with mild, moderate, and severe elevation iron-overloaded livers (P > 0.6 for all), respectively. For both MRE methods, R2* value had no significant effect on the liver stiffness measurements (correlation coefficient <0.1, P >0.6 for both).
conclusionIn the mild and moderate elevation iron-overloaded liver, both SE MRE and fast SE-EPI MRE can provide successful and reliable liver stiffness measurement. In severe elevation iron-overloaded livers, SE MRE may be a better choice than SE-EPI MRE.
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.