ArticleKorean journal of radiology2025
Ultrafast MRI for Pediatric Brain Assessment in Routine Clinical Practice.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ESR Essentials: neuroimaging of pediatric headaches in the emergent and non-emergent setting-practice recommendations by the European Society of Neuroradiology.European radiology · 2026Guideline
- Deep learning improves image quality in motion-robust and sedation-free pediatric brain MRI.European radiology · 2026Article
- A Pilot Feasibility Study of Neurodevelopmental Surveillance After the Fontan Operation Using a Sedation-Free Brain MRI Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Validation and feasibility of fast knee MRI using a deep learning-assisted 3D iterative image enhancement system.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Focused Abbreviated Survey Technique (FAST) brain magnetic resonance imaging in children: results from a European Society of Pediatric Radiology survey.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Insights into Accelerated MRI Protocols for Pediatric Brain Assessment in Emergency Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Impact of Ultrafast Cranial MRI Implementation in Children Under Six Years of Age.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison.
resultsThe total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (
conclusionUltrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.
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.