ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Dynamic contrast-enhanced liver MRI in children: image quality comparison between GRASP-VIBE and CAIPIRINHA-VIBE.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare image quality between GRASP-VIBE (free-breathing) and CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (breath-hold) sequences in dynamic liver MRI in a pediatric population. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 70 children who underwent dynamic liver MRI at 3 T with either GRASP-VIBE (n = 40) or CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (n = 40) acquisition. Ten patients underwent both imaging protocols at different time points. Image pairs were matched at four representative anatomical levels using vascular landmarks. Four dynamic contrast phases (pre-contrast, arterial, portal venous, delayed venous) at each anatomic level were independently reviewed by two radiologists, leading to a total of 640 comparisons per reader. Reader preference was assessed using a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm. Inter- and intra-reader agreement were analyzed using binomial tests and Cohen's κ.
resultsGRASP-VIBE was preferred over CAIPIRINHA-VIBE across all contrast-enhanced phases of pediatric liver MRI: 82.2% [526/640] in the arterial, 83.1% [532/640] in the portal venous, 71.3% [456/640] in the delayed venous (all p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for the pre-contrast phase with 59.4% [380/640] GRASP-VIBE preference (p = 0.45). Strongest GRASP-VIBE preferences were observed in older children and adolescents and in examinations performed without anesthesia. Across all anatomical levels, GRASP consistently outperformed Caipirinha-VIBE in contrast-enhanced phases. Inter-reader agreement was moderate in the arterial (κ = 0.51) and delayed venous (κ = 0.48) phases, and slight in pre-contrast (κ = 0.19) and portal venous (κ = 0.20) phases (intra-reader agreement, κ = 0.56, κ = 0.60, κ = 0.28 and κ = 0.42).
conclusionGRASP-VIBE offered superior subjective image quality compared to CAIPIRINHA-VIBE in pediatric liver MRI, especially in early contrast phases. Its free-breathing approach might be particularly advantageous regarding image quality in children unable to perform breath-holds. KEY POINTS: Question Does free-breathing GRASP-VIBE provide superior image quality compared to breath-hold CAIPIRINHA-VIBE for dynamic liver MRI in pediatric patients? Findings GRASP-VIBE was preferred across all contrast phases, delivering consistently higher-quality images than CAIPIRINHA-VIBE, particularly in children unable to perform breath-holds. Clinical relevance Using GRASP-VIBE enables high-quality dynamic pediatric liver MRI. Further research is needed to determine whether this sequence can reduce the need for sedation or general anesthesia in children.
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.