ArticleSpinal cord2026
MRI metal artifact characterization in patients with spinal cord injury at 3 Tesla.
Article in Spinal cord, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
design(Phantom & Human)
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to optimize imaging sequences to suppress artifacts induced by metallic hardware, using phantoms implanted with spinal hardware and participants with spinal cord injury (SCI) and spinal hardware at 3Tesla. SETTINGS: US
methodsMagnetic resonance (MR) sequences were first tested on realistic agar-suspended spine phantom models with metallic instrumentation. C-spine with anterior-plate, posterior rods/screws, C-spine with rods/screws, C-spine with Kirschner wire, posterior T-spine with rods/screws, and anterior/posterior T-spine with anterior-plate and rods/screws were used. The optimized metal-suppression sequences obtained from phantom imaging were then evaluated on sixteen participants with SCI with similar metal implants. Four neuroradiologists performed a qualitative analysis and ranked all the scans, both with and without metal suppression. The following subjective visual assessment included: conspicuity of neural foramen, mitigation of artifact, visualization of the spinal cord and homogeneity of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
resultsAgreement between the raters was moderate (0.41 to 0.6) to substantial (0.61 to 0.8) for most measures, although some were in the fair range (0.21 to 0.4). In evaluating the T2 weighted-axial images for conspicuity of neural foramen, visualization of spinal cord, and homogeneity of CSF as well as T1 weighted-axial image for homogeneity of CSF in the anterior plate, the upper bound of the confidence interval was below "3" so the metal suppressed image was favored.
conclusionThere is some improvement in using metal-suppressed sequences to evaluate spinal cord injury patients with metal hardware at 3T MRI; however, the model-adjusted mean scores did not reach statistical significance.
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.