ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Clinical MR imaging of patients with spinal hardware at 0.55T: comparison of diagnostic assessment and metal artifact appearance with 1.5T.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging Near Spinal Fixation Hardware at 0.55 T Compared With 3 T.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Open-Source Simulator of Imaging Near Metal at Arbitrary Magnetic Field Strengths.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Acceleration of slice encoding for metal artifact correction at 0.55 T using hexagonal sampling.Magnetic resonance in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to assess inter-reader agreement of imaging findings and compare readers' assessment of image quality (IQ) and appearance of metal artifact (MA) in patients with spinal implants between 0.55T and 1.5T MRI.
methodsPatients imaged on Siemens Healthineers Magnetom Free.Max 0.55T (n = 42; avg. age 55 yrs.) with spinal hardware between 12/2021 and 3/2024 were included. Of these, 18 patients had a paired exam at 1.5T. All exams were reviewed independently by three neuroradiologists (R1-3). Readers selected imaging findings from a pick-list and rated sequences using a 4-point Likert scale for IQ and MA.
resultsAt both 0.55T and 1.5T, raw agreement for the following findings ranged between 81 and 95%: cord signal abnormality, osteomyelitis/discitis, osseous metastatic disease, and compression fracture. Agreement on post-operative fluid collection and spinal canal stenosis was 64.3% and 66.7% at 0.55T, and 77.7% and 50.0% at 1.5T. Agreement on neural foraminal stenosis was low in both cohorts, 47.6% and 33.3% at 0.55T and 1.5T. No sequence at 0.55T was rated inferior to 1.5T in IQ or MA. Sequences rated higher at 0.55T compared to 1.5T were as follows for IQ: sagittal T1w TSE (R1) and as follows for MA: axial T1w TSE (R1, R2), sagittal T1w TSE (R1), axial T2w TSE (R1), sagittal T1w TSE Dixon post-contrast (R2), sagittal T2w STIR (R2: p = 0.01).
conclusionImaging patients with spinal hardware at 0.55T results in comparable inter-reader agreement for clinically-relevant imaging findings and equivalent or improved image quality compared to 1.5T.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39894833What 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.