ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025
Flexible and wireless metasurface coils for knee and elbow MRI.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting Inductively Coupled Wireless Coils in MRI: Mitigating Over-Coupling With Preamplifiers.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Metamaterial Antennas Enhance MRI of the Eye and Occipital Brain.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetasurface coils (MCs) are a promising magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. Aiming to evaluate the image quality of MCs for knee and elbow imaging, we compared signal-to-noise ratio (SNRs) obtained in standard clinical setups.
methodsKnee and elbow MRI routine sequences were applied at 1.5 T, implementing four coil scenarios: (1) 15-channel transmit/receive knee coil; (2) four-channel multipurpose coil (flex coil); (3) MC + spine coil; and (4) MC + multipurpose coil. Three regions of interest (ROIs) at different anatomical depths were compared.
resultsSeven participants (aged 28 ± 2 years; 6 males) were enrolled. In elbow MRI, the MC + spine coil demonstrated the highest SNR across all ROIs (superficial-anterior: +114%, p = 0.008; middle: +147%, p = 0.008; deep-posterior: +24%, p = 0.039) compared to the flex coil and all ROIs, except the deepest from the MC, compared to the knee coil (superficial-anterior: +28%, p = 0.016; middle: +104%, p = 0.008; deep-posterior: -1%, p = 0.531). In knee MRI, the MC + spine coil provided higher SNR compared to the flex coil, except posterior (superficial-anterior: +69%, p = 0.008; middle: +288%, p = 0.008; deep-posterior: -12%, p = 0.148) versus the knee coil, the MC + spine coil was superior in the middle but non-different in superficial pre-patellar areas and less in deep-posterior areas (superficial-anterior: -8%, p = 0.188; middle: +44%, p = 0.008; deep-posterior: -36%, p = 0.016).
conclusionWireless MCs exhibited great potential for knee and elbow MRI outperforming the flex coil. Future developments will improve the posterior illumination to increase its clinical value. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MCs offer enhanced versatility, flexibility, and patient comfort. If universal MC designs can achieve image quality comparable to those of standard coils and simultaneously be utilized across multiple body areas, the technology may revolutionize future musculoskeletal MRIs. KEY POINTS: MCs are promising in MRI, but homogeneity is challenging depending on the design. Signal-to-noise-ratio was improved for knee and elbow imaging with slight inhomogeneous illumination. MCs could match the image quality of standard coils in both knee and elbow 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.