Results of a prospective multicenter study for evaluation of the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-filed MRI unit. A comparison with high-field MRI measured by the applicable gold standard

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 43-53

  Merl, T ^a   Scholz, M ^a   Gerhardt, P ^a   Langer, M ^b   Laubenberger, J ^b   Weiss, H D ^c   Gehl, H B ^c   Wolf, K J ^d   Ohnesorge, I ^d  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LÜBECK   (Germany)

^d Radiological Hospital   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparative studies; MR imaging; Technical aspects

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSIS; DISEASES; MEDICAL IMAGING; STATISTICAL METHODS;

HIGH-FIELD MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HISTOPATHOLOGY; LOW-FIELD MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY DISEASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROTATOR CUFF RUPTURE; SPINE DISEASE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BRAIN DISEASES; EVALUATION STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SHOULDER; SPINAL DISEASES;

EID: 0033050451     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0720-048X(98)00134-X     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Albeck MJ, Hilden J, Kjaer L, Holtas S, Praestholm J, Henriksen O, Gjerris F A controlled comparison of myelography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in clinically suspected lumbar disc herniation [see comments]. Spine. 20:1995;443-448.
2. Amendola MA Comparison of MR imaging and CT in the evaluation of renal masses. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 29:1989;117-150.
3. Atlas S. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
4. Barnett J MR diagnosis of internal derangement of the knee: effect of field strength on efficacy. Am J Roentgenol. 161:1993;115-118.
5. Begg C, Greenes R Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to bias. Biometrics. 39:1983;207-215.
6. Bischoff RJ, Rodriguez RP, Gupta K, Righi A, Dalton JE, Whitecloud TS A comparison of computed tomography-myelography, magnetic resonance imaging, and myelography in the diagnosis of herniated nucleus pulposus and spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord. 6:1993;289-295.
7. Blanchard TK, Mackenzie R, Bearcroft PW, Sinnatamby R, Gray A, Lomas DJ, Constant CR, Dixon AK Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: assessment of effectiveness. Clin Radiol. 52:1997;363-368.
8. Bradley WJ MR appearance of hemorrhage in the brain [see comments]. Radiology. 189:1993;15-26.
9. Chandnani VP, Yeager TD, DeBerardino T, Christensen K, Gagliardi JA, Heitz DR, Baird DE, Hansen MF Glenoid labral tears: prospective evaluation with MRI imaging, MR arthrography, and CT arthrography. Am J Roentgenol. 161:1993;1229-1235.
10. Crooks LE, Arakawa M, Hoenninger J, McCarten B, Watts J, Kaufman L Magnetic resonance imaging: effects of magnetic field strength. Radiology. 151:1984;127-133.
11. Davidson AJ, Hartman DS, Choyke PL, Wagner BJ Radiologic assessment of renal masses: implications for patient care. Radiology. 202:1997;297-305.
12. Dobson MJ, Hartley RW, Ashleigh R, Watson Y, Hawnaur JM MR angiography and MR imaging of symptomatic vascular malformations. Clin Radiol. 52:1997;595-602.
13. Dorfmann D, Alf E Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection and theory and determination of confidence intervals - a rating method data. J Math Psych. 1969:1969;487-496.
14. Edelmann R, Hesselink J, Zlatkin M. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1996.
15. Evancho AM, Stiles RG, Fajman WA, Flower SP, Macha T, Brunner MC, Fleming L MR imaging diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. Am J Roentgenol. 151:1988;751-754.
16. Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Bressi S, Martinelli V, Baratti C, Reganati P, Campi A, Miller DH, Comi G. Intra- and inter-observer agreement of brain MRI lesion volume measurements in multiple sclerosis. A comparison of techniques. Brain 1995;49:1593-1600.
17. Filippi M, Van WJ, Horsfield MA, Bressi S, Gasperini C, Yousry TA, Gawne CM, Morrissey SP, Rocca MA, Barkhof F, Lycklama A, Nijeholt GJ, Bastianello S, Miller DH Interscanner variation in brain MRI lesion load measurements in MS: implications for clinical trials. Neurology. 49:1997;371-377.
18. Fleiss J. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: Wiley, 1981.
19. Franken EJ, Berbaum KS, Dunn V, Smith WL, Ehrhardt JC, Levitz GS, Breckenridge RE Impact of MR imaging on clinical diagnosis and management: a prospective study. Radiology. 161:1986;377-380.
20. Gray R, Begg C, Greenes R. Construction of a ROC when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Med Decis Mak 1984;4(2):151-164.
21. Hayman LA, Taber KH, Ford JJ, Bryan RN Mechanisms of MR signal alteration by acute intracerebral blood: old concepts and new theories. Am J Neuroradiol. 12:1991;899-907.
22. Holt RG, Helms CA, Steinbach L, Neumann C, Munk PL, Genant HK Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: rationale and current applications. Skelet Radiol. 19:1990;5-14.
23. Hoult DI, Chen CN, Sank VJ The field dependence of NMR imaging. II. Arguments concerning an optimal field strength. Magn Reson Med. 3:1986;730-746.
24. Hricak H, Thoeni RF, Carroll PR, Demas BE, Marotti M, Tanagho EA Detection and staging of renal neoplasms: a reassessment of MR imaging. Radiology. 166:1988;643-649.
25. Huch BR, Debatin JF, Krestin GP Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the kidneys and adrenal glands. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am. 4:1996;101-131.
26. Iannotti JP, Zlatkin MB, Esterhai JL, Kressel HY, Dalinka MK, Spindler KP Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 73:1991;17-29.
27. Jack CJ, Berquist TH, Miller GM, Forbes GS, Gray JE, Morin RL, Ilstrup DM Field strength in neuro-MR imaging: a comparison of 0.5 T and 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 14:1990;505-513.
28. Janssen ME, Bertrand SL, Joe C, Levine MI Lumbar herniated disk disease: comparison of MRI, myelography, and post-myelographic CT scan with surgical findings. Orthopedics. 17:1994;121-127.
29. Jensen MC, Brant ZM, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain [see comments]. New Engl J Med. 331:1994;69-73.
30. Kersting SB, Gerhardt P, Golder W, Hof N, Riel KA, Helmberger H, Lenz M, Lehner K MRI of the knee joint: first results of a comparison of 0,2-T specialized system and 1,5-T high-field strength magnet. RÖFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 162:1995;390-395.
31. Kreft BP, Muller MH, Sommer T, Steudel A, Vahlensieck M, Novak D, Muller BG, Schild HH Diagnostic value of MR imaging in comparison to CT in the detection and differential diagnosis of renal masses: ROC analysis. Eur Radiol. 7:1997;542-547.
32. Krestin GP Magnetic resonance imaging of the kidneys: current status. Magn Reson Q. 10:1994;2-21.
33. Lee DH, Vellet AD, Eliasziw M, Vidito L, Ebers GC, Rice GP, Hewett L, Dunlavy S MR imaging field strength: prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Radiology. 194:1995;257-262.
34. Liu SH, Henry MH, Nuccion S, Shapiro MS, Dorey E Diagnosis of glenoid labral tears. A comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and clinical examinations [see comments]. Am J Sports Med. 24:1996;149-154.
35. Metz C Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 8:1978;283-298.
36. Modic M, Masaryk T, Ross J. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Spine. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 1993.
37. Monu JU, Pope TJ, Chabon SJ, Vanarthos WJ MR diagnosis of superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) injuries of the glenoid labrum: value of routine imaging without intraarticular injection of contrast material. Am J Roentgenol. 163:1994;1425-1429.
38. Mustard CA, McClarty B, MacEwan D Influence of magnetic resonance imaging on diagnosis and therapeutic intention. Acad Radiol. 3:1996;589-596.
39. Myneni L, Hricak H, Carroll PR Magnetic resonance imaging of renal carcinoma with extension into the vena cava: staging accuracy and recent advances. Br J Urol. 68:1991;571-578.
40. Neumann CH, Petersen SA, Jahnke AH MR imaging of the labral-capsular complex: normal variations. Am J Roentgenol. 157:1991;1015-1021.
41. Norfray JF, Couch JR, Elble RJ, Good DC, Manyam BV, Patrick JL Visualization of brain iron by mid-field MR. Am J Neuroradiol. 9:1988;77-82.
42. Okada S, Kawakatsu M, Suzuki H, lgarashi Y, Ito T, Kato T, Kaieda R, Ming NG MR imaging of intracerebral hematomas: sequential changes of signal intensities on a 0.2 T permanent magnetic system. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi. 50:1990;938-945.
43. Orrison WJ, Stimac GK, Stevens EA, LaMasters DL, Espinosa MC, Cobb L, Mettler FJ Comparison of CT, low-field-strength MR imaging, and high-field-strength MR imaging. Work in progress. Radiology. 181:1991;121-127.
44. Osborne A. Diagnostic Neuroradiology. St Louis: Mosby, 1994.
45. Parizel PM, Dijkstra HA, Geenen GP, Kint PA, Versteylen RJ, Van WP, De SA Low-field versus high-field MR imaging of the knee: a comparison of signal behaviour and diagnostic performance [see comments]. Eur J Radiol. 19:1995;132-138.
46. Passariello R, Mastantuono M, Satragno L. Magnetic resonance imaging of the extremities using dedicated equipment: diagnostic and economic considerations. Acad Radiol 1996;3(Suppl 1):S141-S144.
47. Resnick D. Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Disorders. Philadelphia PA: Saunders, 1996.
48. Resnick D, Kang H. Internal Derangement of Joints. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1997.
49. Rutt BK, Lee DH The impact of field strength on image quality in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 6:1996;57-62.
50. Schima W, Wimberger D, Schneider B, Stiglbauer R, Asenbaum S, Imhof H The importance of magnetic field strength in the MR diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a comparison of 0.5 and 1.5 T. RÖFO Fortschr Geb Röntgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 158:1993;368-371.
51. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Magro CM, Kroeker MA, MacMahon R, Greenberg HM Renal cancer staging: comparison of contrast-enhanced CT and gadolinium-enhanced fat-suppressed spin-echo and gradient-echo MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 3:1993;597-602.
52. Shoenut JP, Semelka RC Magnetic resonance imaging of lesions in the abdomen. Med J Aust. 158:1993;495-497.
53. Silberstein M, Tress BM, Rossiter S Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging at 0.3 T, based on clinical follow up of 3262 examinations. Australas Radiol. 37:1993;141-146.
54. Smith AM, McCauley TR, Jokl P SLAP lesions of the glenoid labrum diagnosed with MR imaging. Skelet Radiol. 22:1993;507-510.
55. Snyder SJ, Karzel RP, Del PW, Ferkel RD, Friedman MJ SLAP lesions of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 6:1990;274-279.
56. Stoller D. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
57. Thulborn KR, Sorensen AG, Kowall NW, McKee A, Lai A, McKinstry RC, Moore J, Rosen BR, Brady TJ The role of ferritin and hemosiderin in the MR appearance of cerebral hemorrhage: a histopathologic biochemical study in rats. Am J Roentgenol. 154:1990;1053-1059.
58. Vellet AD, Lee DH, Munk PL, Hewett L, Eliasziw M, Dunlavy S, Vidito L, Fowler PJ, Miniaci A, Amendola A Anterior cruciate ligament tear: prospective evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of middle- and high-field-strength MR imaging at 1.5 and 0.5 T [see comments]. Radiology. 197:1995;826-830.
59. Wacker F, Branding G, Zimmer T, Faiss S, Wolf KJ MR-Cholangiopankreatikographie am offenen Niederfeldsystem bei 0,2 Tesla: Erste klinische Ergebnisse im Vergleich zum Hochfeldsystem (1,5 Tesla) und zur ERCP. RÖFO Fortschr Geb Röntgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 167:1997;579-584.
60. Weeks SM, Brown ED, Brown JJ, Adamis MK, Eisenberg LB, Semelka RC Transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: staging by MRI. Abdom Imaging. 20:1995;365-367.
61. Zlatkin M. MRI of the Shoulder. New York: Raven Press, 1991.
62. Zyed A, Hayman LA, Bryan RN MR imaging of intracerebral blood: diversity in the temporal pattern at 0.5 and 1.0 T. Am J Neuroradiol. 12:1991;469-474.
63. Zhou XH Comparing correlated areas under the ROC curves of two diagnostic tests in the presence of verification bias. Biometrics. 54:1998;453-470.