ArticleNeurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)2024
Effectiveness of radiology modalities in diagnosing and characterizing brain disorders.
Article in Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-amplified contrast enhancement in brain magnetic resonance imaging for improving image quality and lesion visualization: a prospective pilot study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- A deep ensemble learning framework for brain tumor classification using data balancing and fine-tuning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Necessity of Using MRI as an Imaging Modality in Acute Code Stroke in Indonesia.Vascular health and risk management · 2025Article
- Comment on: Effectiveness of radiology modalities in diagnosing and characterizing brain disorders.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo observe the accuracy of Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans in evaluating neurological disorders.
methodsThis retrospective research used CT or MRI to diagnose and characterize brain disorders. Patients' records suffering from neurological disorders were considered eligible for inclusion, regardless of the time of appearance of symptoms, the severity of their symptoms, or their final clinical diagnosis. The exclusion criteria for this study involved patients who did not undergo either a CT or MRI scan. A chi-square test was performed to observe the association between the study variables. A total of 3155 cases were analyzed.
resultsThe most prevalent comorbid was dyslipidemia 670 (21.6%) followed by hypertension 548 (17.6%). Overall brain disorders were confirmed in 2426 (77%) patients. It was observed that half of the patients 1543 (48.9%) were diagnosed with stroke. It was found that the accuracy of CT and MRI was 78% and 74% respectively. The association of modalities, patient type, and gender with the confirmation of diseases was not found significant (
conclusionOur study revealed that CT and MRI were accurate by more than 75% and no difference was between both techniques to detect neurological disorders.
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.