We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Results of a prospective multicenter study for evaluation of the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI unit. A comparison with high-field MRI measured by the applicable gold standard.
European Journal of Radiology 1999 April
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI scanner compared to high-field scanners.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 3 months, 401 patients with diseases of the kidney (n = 78), the shoulder (n = 122), the spine (n = 105) and the cerebrum (n = 96) were prospectively evaluated in four participating centers. They all underwent clinical evaluation, low-field and high-field MRI examination and surgical or follow-up confirmation of diagnosis. Clinical, histopathologic, high-field and low-field MRI diagnoses were recorded in standardized questionnaires that were centrally evaluated. Statistical evaluation comprised two parts: ROC analysis assessed accuracy of MRI and clinical diagnoses; furthermore rates of concordance of high- and low-field MRI diagnosis were calculated.
RESULTS: We found no statistically relevant difference in high-field MRI diagnosis compared to low-field MRI diagnostic accuracy measured by clinical or surgical gold standard in three of the four regions examined; in cerebral examinations there was a small yet significant advantage for the high-field systems (P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: We conclude that the open low-field scanner we evaluated using clinical and surgical gold standard as reference is able to achieve comparable diagnostic accuracy compared to high-field scanners at lower costs and greater patient comfort. Limitations due to field strength (signal-to-noise ratio, resolution, scan time) seem to be relevant only in a very small number of cases that warrant high-field examination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 3 months, 401 patients with diseases of the kidney (n = 78), the shoulder (n = 122), the spine (n = 105) and the cerebrum (n = 96) were prospectively evaluated in four participating centers. They all underwent clinical evaluation, low-field and high-field MRI examination and surgical or follow-up confirmation of diagnosis. Clinical, histopathologic, high-field and low-field MRI diagnoses were recorded in standardized questionnaires that were centrally evaluated. Statistical evaluation comprised two parts: ROC analysis assessed accuracy of MRI and clinical diagnoses; furthermore rates of concordance of high- and low-field MRI diagnosis were calculated.
RESULTS: We found no statistically relevant difference in high-field MRI diagnosis compared to low-field MRI diagnostic accuracy measured by clinical or surgical gold standard in three of the four regions examined; in cerebral examinations there was a small yet significant advantage for the high-field systems (P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: We conclude that the open low-field scanner we evaluated using clinical and surgical gold standard as reference is able to achieve comparable diagnostic accuracy compared to high-field scanners at lower costs and greater patient comfort. Limitations due to field strength (signal-to-noise ratio, resolution, scan time) seem to be relevant only in a very small number of cases that warrant high-field examination.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app