ArticleNeuroradiology2024
The impact of image contrast, resolution and reader expertise on black hole identification in Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn the neuroradiological work-up of Multiple Sclerosis (MS), the detection of "black holes" (BH) represent an information of undeniable importance. Nevertheless, different sequences can be used in clinical practice to evaluate BH in MS. Aim of this study was to investigate the possible impact of different sequences, resolutions, and levels of expertise on the intra- and inter-rater reliability identification of BH in MS.
methodsBrain MRI scans of 85 MS patients (M/F = 22/63; mean age = 36.0 ± 10.2 years) were evaluated in this prospective single-center study. The acquisition protocol included a 3 mm SE-T1w sequence, a 1 mm 3D-GrE-T1w sequence from which a resliced 3 mm sequence was also obtained. Images were evaluated independently by two readers of different expertise at baseline and after a wash-out period of 30 days. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated as an index of intra and inter-reader reliability.
resultsFor both readers, the intra-reader ICC analysis showed that the 3 mm SE-T1w and 3 mm resliced GrE-T1w images achieved an excellent performance (both with an ICC ≥ 0.95), while 1 mm 3D-GrE-T1w scans achieved a moderate one (ICC < 0.90). The inter-reader analysis showed that each of the three sequences achieved a moderate performance (all ICCs < 0.90).
conclusionsThe 1 mm 3D-GrE-T1w sequence seems to be prone to a greater intra-reader variability compared to the 3 mm SE-T1w, with this effect being driven by the higher spatial resolution of the first sequence. To ensure reliability levels comparable with the standard SE-T1w in BH count, an assessment on a 3 mm resliced GrE-T1w sequence should be recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38374410What 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.