ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Comparison of spin-echo echo planar imaging and gradient-recalled echo sequences in magnetic resonance elastography of liver at 1.5T same MRI scanner.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative equivalence of Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA)-2023- and QIBA-2020-compliant MR elastography protocols for liver stiffness assessment.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMagnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is used to measure liver stiffness with gradient-recalled echo (GRE)-based and spin-echo echo planar imaging (SE-EPI)-based sequences. We compared the liver stiffness (LS) values of the two sequences on a 1.5-T MR imaging scanner.
methodsThis is a retrospective study. An MRE imaging section was obtained from a horizontal section of the liver. Region of interest was drawn on the elastogram, and the mean LS and pixel values were measured and compared. The correlations between proton density fat fraction, R2* values, and biochemical data from electronic medical records were confirmed, and multivariate analysis was performed.
resultsThe mean LS values were 3.01 ± 1.78 kPa for GRE and 3.13 ± 1.57 kPa for SE-EPI, showing excellent agreement and a strong correlation between the two sequences (correlation coefficient r = 0.96). The mean pixel values were 369.5 ± 142.7 pixels for GRE and 490.1 ± 197.9 pixels for SE-EPI, showing a significant difference by the Wilcoxon rank sum test (p < 0.01). There were no LS unmeasurable cases in SE-EPI, but seven (2.5%) were unmeasurable in GRE, and multivariate analysis showed a significant difference with p < 0.001 in R2* values (mean, 92.7 Hz) for the GRE method.
conclusionThe GRE and SE-EPI methods were comparable for LS measurements in 1.5-T liver MRE, indicating that SE-EPI MRE is more useful because GRE MRE may not measure cases with high R2* values and the region of interest tends to be smaller.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38012395What 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.