Observational studyAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
MRI Interpretation Errors in Adult Patients with Medically Refractory Epilepsy.
Observational study in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe aim is to determine the most common MRI interpretation errors in patients with medically refractory epilepsy (MRE) according to our experience in a tertiary academic center with a large volume epilepsy program, to raise awareness of the "blind spots" in imaging patients with MRE, and to highlight the importance of combining clinical and electroencephalographic information to obtain the most accurate diagnosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective observational study. All patients with MRE who underwent MRI brain (on 3T, with dedicated epilepsy protocol), and who were discussed at the weekly interdisciplinary epilepsy conference in our center between January 2008 and July 2023 were included. The initial MRI interpretation and final MRI interpretation results were reviewed.
resultsA total of 886 patients with MRE were included. Three hundred patients were MRI-negative (33.86%), diagnoses were missed in 95 patients (10.7%), a second diagnosis was missed in patients with dual pathologies in 42 patients (4.74%), findings were misinterpreted in 4 patients (0.45%), an overcall was made in 2 patients (0.2%), and in 5 patients the correct diagnosis was discussed but erroneously deemed absent on initial interpretation (0.56%), resulting in a total of 148 discrepant MRI reports. Mesial temporal sclerosis comprised the most common pathology encountered overall, followed by encephalomalacia related to prior insult, enlarged amygdala (EA), malformations of cortical development, cavernoma, and ulegyria. The relative proportion of missed focal cortical dysplasia, encephalocele, and EA accounted for the most common misses/misdiagnoses.
conclusionsEvaluation of patients with MRE requires excellent interdisciplinary care. Input from all members of the interdisciplinary team is essential for accurate interpretation of MRI in patients with MRE for the neuroradiologist. We hope to inform radiologists of commonly overlooked pathologies in MRI brain interpretation for patients with epilepsy. In doing so, we want to maximize the yield of initial MRI interpretation in these 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.