NRS Mental Health Network Annual Scientific Meeting 2020 Nov 04, 2020 09:00 AM - 05:30 PM — Virtual Meeting (online)
Scottish Radiological Society Annual General Meeting 2020 Nov 06, 2020 09:30 AM - 03:30 PM — Virtual Meeting (online)
Megastars in Molecular Imaging seminars Nov 09, 2020 - Nov 10, 2020 — Virtual Meeting (online)
IPEM educational meeting: Artificial Intelligence in MRI Nov 18, 2020 12:00 AM — Virtual Meeting (online)
Blood-Brain Barrier Symposium Nov 23, 2020 09:30 AM - 05:00 PM — Virtual Meeting (online)

eLearning

SINAPSE experts from around Scotland have developed ten online modules designed to explain medical imaging. They are freely available and are intended for non-specialists.


Edinburgh Imaging Academy at the University of Edinburgh offers the following online programmes through a virtual learning environment:

Neuroimaging for Research MSc/Dip/Cert

Imaging MSc/Dip/Cert

PET-MR Principles & Applications Cert

Applied Medical Image Analysis Cert

Online Short Courses

A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research

Author(s): J. M. Wardlaw, W. Brindle, A. M. Casado, K. Shuler, M. Henderson, B. Thomas, J. Macfarlane, S. Munoz Maniega, K. Lymer, Z. Morris, C. Pernet, W. Nailon, T. Ahearn, A. N. Mumuni, C. Mugruza, J. McLean, G. Chakirova, Y. T. Tao, J. Simpson, A. C. Stanfield, H. Johnston, J. Parikh, N. A. Royle, J. De Wilde, M. E. Bastin, N. Weir, A. Farrall, M. C. Valdes Hernandez

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.

Full version: Available here

Click the link to go to an external website with the full version of the paper


ISBN: 1432-1084 (Electronic)0938-7994 (Linking)
Publication Year: 2012
Periodical: Eur Radiol
Periodical Number:
Volume:
Pages:
Author Address: Scottish Imaging Network, A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, UK, joanna.wardlaw@ed.ac.uk.