ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with hip implants-presetting a protocol using a phantom.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of MRI Artifacts Induced by Cranial Implants in Phantom Models.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metal structures are a source of artifacts that significantly complicate the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The use of prostate MRI as a preliminary test in men with a suspicion on prostate cancer leads to an increased use of the test. The aim of this study was to solve a clinically significant problem: to ensure the reduction of artifacts from metal hip implants during prostate MRI. Another goal was to evaluate the impact of artifact reduction methods on quantitative measurements. Methods: The prostate gland (PG) phantom model was a cylinder filled with an aqueous solution of polyvinylpyrrolidone at the concentrations of 40%, 30%, and 20% [central zone (CZ), peripheral zone (PZ), and "lesion", respectively]. Phantom MRI study was conducted on Philips Ingenia 1.5T and Philips Ingenia 3T scanners. Results: For 1.5 T, the reduction in the influence of artifacts inside region of interest (ROI) was observed, expressed in a decrease in the average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (CZ, PZ, "lesion") for the manual artifact reduction (MAR) and ZOOM (title of software artifact reduction) techniques compared to the standard method. For 3T this effect was not detected. The same ADC results were obtained for Standard and MAR techniques, and increased ADC values for ZOOM. Despite the fact that the spread of ADC values on 3.0T scanners was minimal, there was a significant deviation of ADC values from the reference ones (up to 30.4%). Therefore, it is necessary to use a correction coefficient in the ADC calculation for the 3.0 T device. In the presented clinical case, high-quality tomograms were obtained without any artifacts, despite the presence of two hip replacement devices in the scanning area. Conclusions: The accurate prostate MRI in the presence of implants is essential for an accurate diagnosis. This approach allows to reduce artifacts from hip implants, to visualize PG and periprostatic tissue in the best way, and to detect malignant and benign changes.
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.