James F Burke1, Douglas J Gelb, Douglas J Quint, Lewis B Morgenstern, Kevin A Kerber. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Center for Clinical Management and Research, Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used in stroke evaluation and is superior to computed tomography for the detection of acute ischaemia. We sought to evaluate the evidence that conventional MRI influences doctor management or patient outcomes in routine care. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMED, EMBASE and proceedings of the International Stroke Conference. Studies were included if they included patients presenting with possible stroke syndromes and they reported MRI results and resulting changes in management or outcome. Multiple reviewers determined inclusion/exclusion for each study, abstracted study characteristics and assessed study quality. RESULTS: Of 1813 articles screened, nine studies met inclusion criteria. None were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies or case-control studies. We found little evidence that MRI affects outcomes - one single-centre case series presented three patients. The remaining articles were studies of diagnostic tests or vignette-based studies that described changes in doctor management attributed to MRI. In the studies that suggested MRI influenced management, it did so in two ways. First, MRI distinguished stroke from mimics (e.g. brain tumours), thus enabling more appropriate selection of therapies. Second, even when MRI confirmed a suspected stroke diagnosis, it sometimes provided information (on stroke mechanism, localization, timing or pathophysiology) that influenced management. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of MRI on management and outcomes in stroke patients has been inadequately studied. Further research is needed to understand how MRI may productively affect stroke management and outcomes. Published 2012. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used in stroke evaluation and is superior to computed tomography for the detection of acute ischaemia. We sought to evaluate the evidence that conventional MRI influences doctor management or patient outcomes in routine care. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMED, EMBASE and proceedings of the International Stroke Conference. Studies were included if they included patients presenting with possible stroke syndromes and they reported MRI results and resulting changes in management or outcome. Multiple reviewers determined inclusion/exclusion for each study, abstracted study characteristics and assessed study quality. RESULTS: Of 1813 articles screened, nine studies met inclusion criteria. None were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies or case-control studies. We found little evidence that MRI affects outcomes - one single-centre case series presented three patients. The remaining articles were studies of diagnostic tests or vignette-based studies that described changes in doctor management attributed to MRI. In the studies that suggested MRI influenced management, it did so in two ways. First, MRI distinguished stroke from mimics (e.g. brain tumours), thus enabling more appropriate selection of therapies. Second, even when MRI confirmed a suspected stroke diagnosis, it sometimes provided information (on stroke mechanism, localization, timing or pathophysiology) that influenced management. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of MRI on management and outcomes in strokepatients has been inadequately studied. Further research is needed to understand how MRI may productively affect stroke management and outcomes. Published 2012. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Pierpaolo Lupo; Riccardo Cappato; Giovanni Di Leo; Francesco Secchi; Giacomo D E Papini; Sara Foresti; Hussam Ali; Guido M G De Ambroggi; Antonio Sorgente; Gianluca Epicoco; Paola M Cannaò; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Seemant Chaturvedi; Susan Ofner; Fitsum Baye; Laura J Myers; Mike Phipps; Jason J Sico; Teresa Damush; Edward Miech; Mat Reeves; Jason Johanning; Linda S Williams; Greg Arling; Eric Cheng; Zhangsheng Yu; Dawn Bravata Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Miriam Brazzelli; Kirsten Shuler; Zahid Quayyum; Donald Hadley; Keith Muir; Paul McNamee; Janet De Wilde; Martin Dennis; Peter Sandercock; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Miriam Brazzelli; Francesca M Chappell; Hector Miranda; Kirsten Shuler; Martin Dennis; Peter A G Sandercock; Keith Muir; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 10.422