ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Grading cervical neural foraminal stenosis via 3-T MR nerve/bone fusion imaging compared with T2-weighted imaging.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the value of 3-T MR nerve/bone fusion imaging in grading cervical neural foraminal stenosis (CNFS). MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-eight healthy participants and 23 patients with suspected cervical radiculopathy were prospectively enrolled. MR nerve and bone sequences were 3D-T2-weighted fast field echo (3D-T2-FFE) and fast field echo resembling a CT using restricted echo-spacing (FRACTURE), respectively. The agreements of overall image quality, image artifacts, the width of cervical neural foramen (WCNF), and the width of extraforaminal nerve root (WENR) were assessed on 3D-T2-FFE/FRACTURE fusion images in healthy participants. The detection rate, visibility score of extraforaminal nerve root (ENR), and the CNFS grade were compared for patients between the 3D-T2-FFE/FRACTURE fusion image and the T2-weighted images (T2WI). The correlation between CNFS grade and the neck disability index (NDI) and numerical pain scale (NPS) was assessed.
resultsThe agreements were moderate to good for overall image quality and image artifacts (κ = 0.614-0.867), and good to excellent for WCNF and WENR (ICC = 0.755-0.931). The detection rate of ENR on 3D-T2-FFE/FRACTURE fusion (184/184, 100%) was higher than that on T2WI (116/184, 63.04%). The agreements for CNFS grade were substantial to nearly perfect on 3D-T2-FFE/FRACTURE fusion (κ = 0.774-0.837), and moderate on T2WI (κ = 0.436-0.636). The CNFS grade on 3D-T2-FFE/FRACTURE fusion was moderately correlated with NDI (ρ = 0.49)/NPS (ρ = 0.55), while there was no correlation between T2WI and NDI/NPS.
conclusionCompared with T2WI, 3D-T2-FFE/FRACTURE fusion provides a more reliable and reproducible evaluation of the severity of CNFS. The CNFS grade based on 3D-T2-FFE/FRACTURE fusion is associated with clinical symptoms. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The use of 3-T MR nerve/bone fusion imaging in clinical practice may facilitate a one-stop-shop, radiation-free, and more precise approach to comprehensively evaluate CNFS. KEY POINTS: Grading cervical foraminal stenosis is relatively difficult in clinical practice. MR nerve/bone fusion grading of cervical foraminal stenosis is more reliable. MR nerve/bone fusion grading of cervical foraminal stenosis correlates with symptoms.
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.