ArticleInternational journal of biomedical imaging2024
Enhanced Myocardial Tissue Visualization: A Comparative Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Study of Gradient-Spin Echo-STIR and Conventional STIR Imaging.
Article in International journal of biomedical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac MRI TRadiology advances · 2024Article
- Enhanced Myocardial Tissue Visualization: A Comparative Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Study of Gradient-Spin Echo-STIR and Conventional STIR Imaging.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the gradient-spin echo- (GraSE-) based short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequence (GraSE-STIR) in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging compared to the conventional turbo spin echo- (TSE-) based STIR sequence, specifically focusing on image quality, specific absorption rate (SAR), and image acquisition time. Methods: In a prospective study, we examined forty-four normal volunteers and seventeen patients referred for CMR imaging using conventional STIR and GraSE-STIR techniques. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), image quality, Results: GraSE-STIR showed significant improvements in image quality (4.15 ± 0.8 vs. 3.34 ± 0.9, Conclusions: GraSE-STIR offers notable advantages over conventional STIR sequence, with improved image quality, reduced motion artifacts, and shorter acquisition times. These findings highlight the potential of GraSE-STIR as a valuable technique for routine clinical CMR imaging.
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.