ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of ultrashort echo times-MRI in patients with and without idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial for "LongitudinalJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHigh-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) plays a key role in the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases (ILD). Lung MRI with ultrashort echo time (UTE-MRI) is a promising alternative, yet its accuracy in identifying usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) patterns, a key feature of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) management, remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate UTE-MRI's diagnostic accuracy for UIP hallmarks compared to HRCT. MATERIAL AND
methodsA monocentric prospective study was conducted between 2017 and 2020. All patients underwent HRCT (reference test) and UTE-MRI (index test). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed for the main UIP hallmarks, i.e., honeycombing, reticulation with or without bronchiolectasis, subpleural and basal distribution and the absence of abnormalities suggestive of an alternative diagnosis. A comprehensive evaluation of UIP and non-UIP patterns was also conducted.
resultsSixty patients were included (median age = 64 years; 46 males), with (n = 25) and without IPF (n = 35). UTE-MRI demonstrated high (sensitivity/specificity) for honeycombing (86.9%/91.9%), reticulation with bronchiolectasis (88.0%/91.4%) or without bronchiolectasis (83.9%/89.7%), subpleural and basal distribution (88.0%/97.1%) and absence of alternative diagnoses (81.2%/77.8%), respectively. It accurately discriminated patients with UIP patterns versus alternative diagnoses with 100% (89.7; 100) sensitivity and 100% (86.7; 100) specificity. Intra- and inter-reader reproducibility was very good (κ ≥ 0.80).
conclusionUTE-MRI can diagnose the main structural hallmarks of IPF with high sensitivity and specificity, and was found to be comparable to CT for discriminating patients with UIP patterns among other fibrosing or non-fibrosing ILDs. Future research should explore morpho-functional combinations for monitoring IPF progression. KEY POINTS: Question The diagnostic accuracy of UTE-MRI to diagnose the usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) patterns is currently unknown. Findings UTE-MRI demonstrated high (sensitivity/specificity) for honeycombing (86.9%/91.9%), reticulation with (88.0%/91.4%) or without bronchiolectasis (83.9%/89.7%), and accurately discriminated patients with UIP patterns versus alternative diagnoses. Clinical relevant statement UTE-MRI can diagnose the main structural hallmarks of IPF with high sensitivity and specificity, and was found to be comparable to CT for discriminating patients with UIP patterns among other fibrosing or non-fibrosing ILDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41139340What 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.