ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of high-quality hepatobiliary phase imaging with shortened timing and utility in patients with compromised liver function.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare high flip angle (FA) hepatobiliary-phase (hHBP) imaging with variable time intervals to conventional HBP (cHBP) to assess the impact of increased FA on image quality in shortened HBP imaging.
methodsData from 218 patients, divided into normal liver group (n = 184) and decompensated liver group (n = 34), who underwent liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including 10-min, 15-min, 20-min hHBP, and cHBP were analyzed. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-ratio (CR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal intensity ratios (SIRs), and relative enhancement (RE) of the liver were calculated for quantitative analysis. Sharpness, noise, and artifacts of the image, contrast media visibility, overall image quality, and lesion conspicuity were evaluated by two abdominal radiologists.
resultsQuantitative analysis showed that SNR, RE, SIR for liver/muscle, liver/spleen, and CR of all hHBP images demonstrated a significantly higher value compared to cHBP images in the normal liver group (p < 0.001). These values were also superior in the normal liver group compared to the decompensated liver group (p < 0.01). In qualitative analysis, both normal and decompensated liver groups exhibited significantly superior image sharpness in all hHBP images compared to cHBP images and the overall image quality of the 15-min and 20-min hHBP did not show significant difference compared to cHBP. All values tended to be better in the normal liver group than the decompensated liver group with statistical significance except for lesion conspicuity (p < 0.01).
conclusionHigh-FA HBP has proven to be a valuable image acquisition method, potentially shortening liver MR imaging time while maintaining acceptable image quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39009896What 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.