ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Intra-patient and inter-observer image quality analysis in liver MRI study with gadoxetic acid using two different multi-arterial phase techniques.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced liver MRI in children: image quality comparison between GRASP-VIBE and CAIPIRINHA-VIBE.European radiology · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of Deep Learning-based Multiple Arterial Phase MRI in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- CT/MRI technical pitfalls for diagnosis and treatment response assessment using LI-RADS and how to optimize.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate intra-patient and interobserver agreement in patients who underwent liver MRI with gadoxetic acid using two different multi-arterial phase (AP) techniques.
methodsA total of 154 prospectively enrolled patients underwent clinical gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI twice within 12 months, using two different multi-arterial algorithms: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and TWIST-VIBE. For every patient, breath-holding time, body mass index, sex, age were recorded. The phase without contrast media and the APs were independently evaluated by two radiologists who quantified Gibbs artefacts, noise, respiratory motion artefacts, and general image quality. Presence or absence of Gibbs artefacts and noise was compared by the McNemar's test. Respiratory motion artefacts and image quality scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Interobserver agreement was assessed by Cohen kappa statistics.
resultsCompared with TWIST-VIBE, CAIPIRINHA-VIBE images had better scores for every parameter except higher noise score. Triple APs were always acquired with TWIST-VIBE but failed in 37% using CAIPIRINHA-VIBE: 11% have only one AP, 26% have two. Breath-holding time was the only parameter that influenced the success of multi-arterial techniques. TWIST-VIBE images had worst score for Gibbs and respiratory motion artefacts but lower noise score.
conclusionCAIPIRINHA-VIBE images were always diagnostic, but with a failure of triple-AP in 37%. TWIST-VIBE was successful in obtaining three APs in all patients. Breath-holding time is the only parameter which can influence the preliminary choice between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and TWIST-VIBE algorithm. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: If the patient is expected to perform good breath-holds, TWIST-VIBE is preferable; otherwise, CAIPIRINHA-VIBE is more appropriate.
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.