Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39170364›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Comparison of single-shot, FOCUS single-shot, MUSE, and FOCUS MUSE diffusion weighted imaging for pulmonary lesions: A pilot study.

Jie Li, Yi Xia, JianKun Dai, GuangYuan Sun, MeiLing Xu, XiaoQing Lin, LingLing Gu, Jie Shi, ShiYuan Liu, Li Fan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jie LiCollege of Health Sciences and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, No.516 Jungong Road, Shanghai, 200093, China.
Yi XiaDepartment of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China.
JianKun DaiGE Healthcare, Beijing, 100000, China.
GuangYuan SunDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China.
MeiLing XuDepartment of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China.
XiaoQing LinCollege of Health Sciences and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, No.516 Jungong Road, Shanghai, 200093, China.
LingLing GuDepartment of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China.
Jie ShiGE Healthcare, Beijing, 100000, China.
ShiYuan LiuDepartment of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China.
Li FanDepartment of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale and objectives: To compare the performance of SS, FOCUS SS, MUSE, and FOCUS MUSE DWI for pulmonary lesions to obtain a better technique for pulmonary DWI imaging. Materials and methods: 44 patients with pulmonary lesions were recruited to perform pulmonary DWI using SS, FOCUS SS, MUSE, and FOCUS MUSE sequences. Then, two radiologists with 12 and 10 years of chest MRI experiences assessed the overall image quality while another two radiologists both with 3 years of experiences evaluated the SNR, DR, and ADC of pulmonary lesions. Using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistics to assess consistency of readers, Friedman test and Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc were used to calculate the difference between sequences. Mann-Whitney test and ROC curve were used to distinguish malignant from benign lesions. Results: All the assessed variables of the four sequences presented good to excellent intra-/inter-observer consistency. Compared with SS, FOCUS SS and MUSE, FOCUS MUSE demonstrated better image quality, including significantly higher 5-point Likert scale score (P < 0.001) and smaller DR (P < 0.001). SNR was comparable among SS, FOCUS SS, and FOCUS MUSE (P > 0.05) while MUSE presented with significantly higher SNR over them (P < 0.01). ADC of malignant was significantly smaller than that of benign for all the four sequences (P < 0.05). ROC analysis showed relatively better diagnostic performance of FOCUS MUSE (AUC = 0.820) over SS (AUC = 0.748), FOCUS SS (AUC = 0.778), and MUSE (AUC = 0.729) in distinguishing malignant from benign lesions. Conclusion: FOCUS MUSE possessed sufficient SNR and was better over SS, FOUCS SS, and MUSE for characterizing pulmonary lesions.

Indexed as

Diffusion weighted imagingLungMagnetic resonance imagingPulmonary lesions

Identifiers

PMID39170364
PMCPMC11336438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.