PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of middle-field-strength and high-field-strength magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients with suspected multiple sclerosis underwent MR imaging at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Imaging parameters were identical except for band width optimization at middle field strength. Images were interpreted by radiologists expert in MR imaging who were blinded to diagnosis and field strength. The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis was made by experienced neurologists, and indeterminate cases and patients without clinical evidence of multiple sclerosis were followed up for 6 months to 1 year. RESULTS: There was no difference in accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity between scanners in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis or white matter disease. Equal numbers of lesions were detected at both field strengths in all parts of the brain. Image quality was always good or adequate at middle field strength. CONCLUSION: Higher field strength does not confer higher accuracy in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis with current-generation MR imagers.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of middle-field-strength and high-field-strength magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients with suspected multiple sclerosis underwent MR imaging at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Imaging parameters were identical except for band width optimization at middle field strength. Images were interpreted by radiologists expert in MR imaging who were blinded to diagnosis and field strength. The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis was made by experienced neurologists, and indeterminate cases and patients without clinical evidence of multiple sclerosis were followed up for 6 months to 1 year. RESULTS: There was no difference in accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity between scanners in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis or white matter disease. Equal numbers of lesions were detected at both field strengths in all parts of the brain. Image quality was always good or adequate at middle field strength. CONCLUSION: Higher field strength does not confer higher accuracy in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis with current-generation MR imagers.
Authors: M Tintoré; A Rovira; M J Martínez; J Rio; P Díaz-Villoslada; L Brieva; C Borrás; E Grivé; J Capellades; X Montalban Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M P Wattjes; M Harzheim; C K Kuhl; J Gieseke; S Schmidt; L Klotz; T Klockgether; H H Schild; G G Lutterbey Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J H Simon; D Li; A Traboulsee; P K Coyle; D L Arnold; F Barkhof; J A Frank; R Grossman; D W Paty; E W Radue; J S Wolinsky Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joshua R Harper; Venkateswararao Cherukuri; Tom O'Reilly; Mingzhao Yu; Edith Mbabazi-Kabachelor; Ronald Mulando; Kevin N Sheth; Andrew G Webb; Benjamin C Warf; Abhaya V Kulkarni; Vishal Monga; Steven J Schiff Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 4.881