ArticleBMC medical imaging2023
Three-dimensional ultrashort echo time magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients with pneumonia: a comparative study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUTE has been used to depict lung parenchyma. However, the insufficient discussion of its performance in pediatric pneumonia compared with conventional sequences is a gap in the existing literature. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of 3D-UTE with that of 3D T1-GRE and T2-FSE sequences in young children diagnosed with pneumonia.
methodsSeventy-seven eligible pediatric patients diagnosed with pneumonia at our hospital, ranging in age from one day to thirty-five months, were enrolled in this study from March 2021 to August 2021. All patients underwent imaging using a 3 T pediatric MR scanner, which included three sequences: 3D-UTE, 3D-T1 GRE, and T2-FSE. Subjective analyses were performed by two experienced pediatric radiologists based on a 5-point scale according to six pathological findings (patchy shadows/ground-glass opacity (GGO), consolidation, nodule, bulla/cyst, linear opacity, and pleural effusion/thickening). Additionally, they assessed image quality, including the presence of artifacts, and evaluated the lung parenchyma. Interrater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Differences among the three sequences were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsThe visualization of pathologies in most parameters (patchy shadows/GGO, consolidation, nodule, and bulla/cyst) was superior with UTE compared to T2-FSE and T1 GRE. The visualization scores for linear opacity were similar between UTE and T2-FSE, and both were better than T1-GRE. In the case of pleural effusion/thickening, T2-FSE outperformed the other sequences. However, statistically significant differences between UTE and other sequences were only observed for patchy shadows/GGO and consolidation. The overall image quality was superior or at least comparable with UTE compared to T2-FSE and T1-GRE. Interobserver agreements for all visual assessments were significant and rated "substantial" or "excellent."
conclusionsIn conclusion, UTE MRI is a useful and promising method for evaluating pediatric pneumonia, as it provided better or similar visualization of most imaging findings compared with T2-FSE and T1-GRE. We suggest that the UTE MRI is well-suited for pediatric population, especially in younger children with pneumonia who require longitudinal and repeated imaging for clinical care or research and are susceptible to ionizing radiation.
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.