ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Clinical application of prone position to suppress respiratory movement artifacts in supine position during magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography/MRI.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the image quality of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in the supine position and prone position under the conditions of the same equipment, the same sequence (3D Navigator Triggered Sampling Perfection with Application-Optimized Contrast Using Different Flip-angle Evolutions, 3D-NT-SPACE) and the same patient, and to explore the clinical application value of prone position in MRCP examination to suppress respiratory motion artifacts.
methods53 participants who underwent MRCP in our hospital from April 2020 to August 2022 were prospectively collected. The 3D-NT-SPACE sequence was used in these patients. The visibility of the common bile duct, common hepatic duct, main pancreatic duct, and first- and second- and third-level branches of the intrahepatic bile duct and the comfort of the participants in two positions were subjective-evaluated. The Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio were objective-evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Mann Whitney U test, Pearson chi-square test, and one-sample chi-square test.
results53 patients (51.92 years ± 2.02, 20 men) were evaluated. There were significant differences in the second- and third-level branches visibility score, the main pancreatic duct visibility score, the image quality score of the pancreaticobiliary tree, the blur and motion artifact score, the total image quality score, and SNR between the two positions (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe overall image quality of the prone position was better than that of the supine position. The prone position is a useful complement to the supine position.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39261321What 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.