ArticleCureus2024
Utility of Echo Planar Imaging With Compressed Sensing-Sensitivity Encoding (EPICS) for the Evaluation of the Head and Neck Region.
Article in Cureus, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced image quality in head and neck MRI with PROPELLER and deep learning reconstruction.European journal of radiology open · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to compare the image quality between echo planar imaging (EPI) with compressed sensing-sensitivity encoding (EPICS)-based diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and conventional parallel imaging (PI)-based DWI of the head and neck. Materials and methods Ten healthy volunteers participated in this study. EPICS-DWI was acquired based on an axial spin-echo EPI sequence with EPICS acceleration factors of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Conventional PI-DWI was acquired using the same acceleration factors (i.e., 2, 3, and 4). Quantitative assessment was performed by measuring the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in a circular region of interest (ROI) on the parotid and submandibular glands. For qualitative evaluation, a three-point visual grading system was used to assess the (1) overall image quality and (2) degree of image distortion. Results In the quantitative assessment, the SNR of the parotid gland in EPICS-DWI was significantly higher than that of PI-DWI in acceleration factors of 3 and 4 (p<0.05). In a comparison of ADC values, significant differences were not observed between EPICS-DWI and PI-DWI. In the qualitative assessment, the overall image quality of EPICS-DWI was significantly higher than that of PI-DWI for acceleration factors 3 and 4 (p<0.05). The degree of image distortion was significantly larger in EPICS-DWI with an acceleration factor of 2 than that of 3 or 4 (p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion Under the appropriate parameter setting, EPICS-DWI demonstrated higher SNR and better overall image quality for head and neck imaging than PI-DWI, without increasing image distortion.
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.