ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of the Image Quality of Turbo Spin Echo and Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Head and Neck Region.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head and neck region is notably challenging due to the complex anatomy and the critical need for high-resolution imaging to accurately diagnose various pathologies. The two prominent MRI techniques used in this context are turbo spin echo (TSE) and echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (EP-DWI). TSE is recognized for providing high-resolution anatomical images, whereas EP-DWI offers functional imaging that highlights the diffusion of water molecules, essential for detecting early pathological changes. This study aims to compare the image quality of TSE and EP-DWI in the head and neck region to assess their diagnostic efficacy and clinical utility.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital over six months. A total of 100 patients (50 males and 50 females, aged 18-65 years) with various head and neck pathologies were included. Patients underwent both TSE and EP-DWI sequences using a Philips MULTIVA 1.5 T scanner. Image quality was assessed based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), artifact presence, and lesion detection. Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed the images, with inter-observer agreement calculated using Cohen's kappa coefficient.
resultsThe mean SNR for TSE was significantly higher than EP-DWI (45.2 vs. 28.7, p<0.01), indicating superior image clarity and detail in TSE images. TSE demonstrated a higher mean CNR compared to EP-DWI (25.4 vs. 15.8, p<0.01), suggesting better differentiation between different tissue types and pathologies. Artifacts were more frequent in EP-DWI images (45% vs. 15%), with motion artifacts being the most common. TSE detected more lesions (120 vs. 95), with more precise delineation of lesions. The inter-observer agreement was excellent for both TSE and EP-DWI, with kappa values of 0.85 and 0.80, respectively.
conclusionTSE MRI provides superior image quality compared to EP-DWI for evaluating the head and neck region. The enhanced SNR and CNR in TSE images result in clearer and more detailed visualizations of anatomical structures and pathological changes, with fewer artifacts. While EP-DWI is valuable for functional imaging, its role should be complementary to TSE. The study suggests that TSE should be the preferred modality for detailed anatomical assessment in the head and neck region. Further studies with larger sample sizes and advanced imaging techniques may provide additional insights into optimizing MRI protocols for head and neck imaging.
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.