ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
The feasibility of half-dose contrast-enhanced scanning of brain tumours at 5.0 T: a preliminary study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Intraindividual comparison of 3-T and 5-T gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for evaluating HCC: initial findings.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- 5.0 T versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T upper abdominal MRI: a prospective two‑cohort study of image quality and diagnostic confidence.European radiology · 2026Article
- 5 T versus 3 T MRI for prostate cancer: an intra-individual prospective comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Improving Delphi Process in Acupuncture Decision Making: Overall Descriptions and Quality Assessment of Delphi Reports.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated and compared the effects of Gd enhancement on brain tumours with a half-dose of contrast medium at 5.0 T and with a full dose at 3.0 T.
methodsTwelve subjects diagnosed with brain tumours were included in this study and underwent MRI after contrast agent injection at 3.0 T (full dose) or 5.0 T (half dose) with a 3D T1-weighted gradient echo sequence. The postcontrast images were compared by two independent neuroradiologists in terms of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and subjective image quality score on a ten-point Likert scale. Quantitative indices and subjective quality ratings were compared with paired Student's t tests, and interreader agreement was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsA total of 16 enhanced tumour lesions were detected. The SNR was significantly greater at 5.0 T than at 3.0 T in grey matter, white matter and enhanced lesions (p < 0.001). The CNR was also significantly greater at 5.0 T than at 3.0 T for grey matter/tumour lesions, white matter/tumour lesions, and grey matter/white matter (p < 0.001). Subjective evaluation revealed that the internal structure and outline of the tumour lesions were more clearly displayed with a half-dose at 5.0 T (Likert scale 8.1 ± 0.3 at 3.0 T, 8.9 ± 0.3 at 5.0 T, p < 0.001), and the effects of enhancement in the lesions were comparable to those with a full dose at 3.0 T (7.8 ± 0.3 at 3.0 T, 8.7 ± 0.4 at 5.0 T, p < 0.001). All subjective scores were good to excellent at both 5.0 T and 3.0 T.
conclusionBoth quantitative and subjective evaluation parameters suggested that half-dose enhanced scanning via 5.0 T MRI might be feasible for meeting clinical diagnostic requirements, as the image quality remains optimal. Enhanced scanning at 5.0 T with a half-dose of contrast agents might benefit patients with conditions that require less intravenous contrast agent, such as renal dysfunction.
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.