ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
CT-like image based on 3D fast low-angle shot: superior diagnostic performance of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of 3D fast low-angle shot (FLASH) compared with conventional MRI sequences for detecting OPLL. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 106 patients who underwent cervical spine MRI and CT. Thirty-nine and 67 patients were enrolled in the OPLL and control groups, respectively. Diagnostic performance and reader confidence for detecting OPLL were compared between conventional MRI using turbo spin echo (TSE) and conventional MRI plus 3D FLASH. Interobserver agreement was also calculated. Three subgroups were defined within the OPLL group according to the sequences required for detecting OPLL (TSE group: cases that were diagnosed as OPLL by reviewing only TSE; 3D FLASH group: cases that were diagnosed by reviewing both TSE and 3D FLASH; none group: cases that were not diagnosed on MRI). The thickness of the OPLL was compared between the subgroups.
resultsThe diagnostic performance of both readers improved when 3D FLASH was added to conventional MRI, and the difference was statistically significant for reader 2 (p = 0.006). After adding 3D FLASH, reader confidence significantly increased (p < 0.001), and interobserver agreement improved from good to excellent. The three subgroups exhibited significantly different OPLL thicknesses (p = 0.008), with the thickest in the TSE group (4.5 mm), followed by the 3D FLASH (3.4 mm) and None groups (2.4 mm).
conclusion3D FLASH can be helpful for detecting OPLL when combined with conventional T1- and T2-weighted 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.