A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research |
| |
Authors: | Joanna M Wardlaw Will Brindle Ana M Casado Kirsten Shuler Moira Henderson Brenda Thomas Jennifer Macfarlane Susana Mu?oz Maniega Katherine Lymer Zoe Morris Cyril Pernet William Nailon Trevor Ahearn Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni Carlos Mugruza John McLean Goultchira Chakirova Yuehui Tao Johanna Simpson Andrew C Stanfield Harriet Johnston Jehill Parikh Natalie A Royle Janet De Wilde Mark E Bastin Nick Weir Andrew Farrall Maria C Valdes Hernandez |
| |
Institution: | 1. Scottish Imaging Network, A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, UK 14. SINAPSE Collaboration, Brain Research Imaging Centre, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK 2. Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 3. University of Dundee, Dundee, UK 4. Edinburgh Cancer Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 5. Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK 6. Department of Clinical Physics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 7. School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK 8. Institute of Neurological Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 9. Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 10. Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK 11. Department of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK 12. The Higher Education Academy, York, UK 13. Department of Medical Physics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
|
| |
Abstract: | Objective MRI at 3?T is said to be more accurate than 1.5?T MR, but costs and other practical differences mean that it is unclear which to use. Methods We systematically reviewed studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 3?T with 1.5?T. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources from 1 January 2000 to 22 October 2010 for studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 1.5 and 3?T in human neuroimaging. We extracted data on methodology, quality criteria, technical factors, subjects, signal-to-noise, diagnostic accuracy and errors according to QUADAS and STARD criteria. Results Amongst 150 studies (4,500 subjects), most were tiny, compared old 1.5?T with new 3?T technology, and only 22 (15?%) described diagnostic accuracy. The 3?T images were often described as “crisper”, but we found little evidence of improved diagnosis. Improvements were limited to research applications functional MRI (fMRI), spectroscopy, automated lesion detection]. Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio was not confirmed, mostly being 25?%. Artefacts were worse and acquisitions took slightly longer at 3?T. Conclusion Objective evidence to guide MRI purchasing decisions and routine diagnostic use is lacking. Rigorous evaluation accuracy and practicalities of diagnostic imaging technologies should be the routine, as for pharmacological interventions, to improve effectiveness of healthcare. Key Points ? Higher field strength MRI may improve image quality and diagnostic accuracy. ? There are few direct comparisons of 1.5 and 3?T MRI. ? Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio in practice was only 25?%. ? Objective evidence of improved routine clinical diagnosis is lacking. ? Other aspects of technology improved images more than field strength. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|