Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37978990›Full record

ReviewSkeletal radiology2024

3D isotropic MRI of ankle: review of literature with comparison to 2D MRI.

Suryansh Bajaj, Avneesh Chhabra, Atul Kumar Taneja

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Skeletal radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Suryansh BajajDepartment of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Avneesh ChhabraMusculoskeletal Radiology Division, Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Atul Kumar TanejaMusculoskeletal Radiology Division, Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. atul.taneja@utsouthwestern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-2033
Johns Hopkins University · USSouthwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ankle joint has complex anatomy with different tissue structures and is commonly involved in traumatic injuries. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the primary imaging modality used to assess the soft tissue structures around the ankle joint including the ligaments, tendons, and articular cartilage. Two-dimensional (2D) fast spin echo/turbo spin echo (FSE/TSE) sequences are routinely used for ankle joint imaging. While the 2D sequences provide a good signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) with high spatial resolution, there are some limitations to their use owing to the thick slices, interslice gaps leading to partial volume effects, limited fluid contrast, and the need to acquire separate images in different orthogonal planes. The 3D MR imaging can overcome these limitations and recent advances have led to technical improvements that enable its widespread clinical use in acceptable time periods. The volume imaging renders the advantage of reconstructing into thin continuous slices with isotropic voxels enabling multiplanar reconstructions that helps in visualizing complex anatomy of the structure of interest throughout their course with improved sharpness, definition of anatomic variants, and fluid conspicuity of lesions and injuries. Recent advances have also reduced the acquisition time of the 3D datasets making it more efficient than 2D sequences. This article reviews the recent technical developments in the domain 3D MRI, compares imaging with 3D versus 2D sequences, and demonstrates the use-case scenarios with interesting cases, and benefits of 3D MRI in evaluating various ankle joint components and their lesions.

Indexed as

AnkleAnkle JointHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingSignal-To-Noise Ratio3D MRIAnkleCartilageFootLigamentsPlantar fasciaPlantar plateTendons

Identifiers

PMID37978990
OpenAlexW4388789459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.