ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
The comparison of MRI and CT protocol examination times for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
In acute ischemic stroke (AIS), where the shortest possible assessment is required to minimize time to mechanical thrombectomy (MT). With recent advancements in MRI reconstruction technology, MRI has also become valuable in the decision-making process for AIS treatment planning. In this study, we compared the examination times of our MRI protocol with those of a standard CT protocol for evaluating AIS through phantom simulations to obtain timing information directly relevant to treatment strategies, and evaluated the utility of MRI for MT. Ten radiological technologists performed scans using the same phantom for each modality. Evaluation items included time for hemorrhage detection, time for penumbra evaluation, and time for brain artery evaluation, and total examination time. The total examination time was slightly shorter with CT (696.2 ± 52.7 s) compared to MRI (701.8 ± 15.8 s), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.4). For other parameters, MRI demonstrated significantly faster detection times: hemorrhage detection (CT, 80.9 ± 12.8 s; MRI, 66.3 ± 1.7 s; p = 0.0002), penumbra evaluation (CT, 696.2 ± 52.7 s; MRI, 262.1 ± 9.3 s; p = 0.0002), and brain artery evaluation (CT, 592.1 ± 32.3 s; MRI, 367.8 ± 8.3 s; p = 0.0002). The coefficient of variation (CV) was lower for MRI compared to CT, indicating less variability in examination times with MRI. This study demonstrates that MRI protocols, including perfusion imaging, can more rapidly visualize factors essential for MT decision-making and do not delay time to MT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40775486What 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.