View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Assessment of the available evidence for the use of 7‐Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, with comparison to 3‐T and 1.5‐T MRI: A systematic scoping review.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Assessment of the available evidence for the use of 7‐Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, with comparison to 3‐T and 1.5‐T MRI: A systematic scoping review.
Authors: Radojewski, Piotr (AUTHOR), Piredda, Gian Franco (AUTHOR), Bonanno, Gabriele (AUTHOR), Lövblad, Karl‐Olof (AUTHOR), Vargas, Maria Isabel (AUTHOR), Sutter, Reto (AUTHOR), Nanz, Daniel (AUTHOR), Karrer, Tanya (AUTHOR), Salanti, Georgia (AUTHOR), Wiest, Roland (AUTHOR)
Source: European Journal of Neurology. Jan2025, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p1-8. 8p.
Subjects: Magnetic resonance imaging, Neurological disorders, Empirical research, Critical analysis, Signal-to-noise ratio, Musculoskeletal system diseases, Comparative studies, Image analysis
Abstract: Background: Ultra‐high‐field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at a field strength of 7 Tesla (T) has marked a significant milestone in diagnostic imaging since it was approved for clinical use in 2017. Despite the potential to improve image analysis by advances in signal‐to‐noise ratio, and improved spatial resolution and metabolic imaging, the clinical implementation of 7‐T MRI remains limited. Factors that contribute to this limited availability are the high price, the operating costs, the need for specifically educated personnel, and lack of evidence of clinical benefit. Methods: The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the evidence of the clinical advantages of 7‐T MRI versus MRI at lower field strengths, complementary imaging modalities, and diagnostic standard approaches for neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and Web of Science for this review. Results: We identified 1966 studies, of which 83 were included in our review. Most studies (73 studies, 88%) examined neurological indications, nine studies (11%) examined musculoskeletal indications, and one study reported on peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Of the neuroimaging indications, cerebrovascular diseases were the most frequently investigated (14 studies), followed by multiple sclerosis (13 studies) and epilepsy (11 studies). Conclusion: The available comparative evidence varied greatly across indications, with the best‐documented evidence being for imaging of epilepsy. Risk of bias overall was high, with limitations in blinding information, study design reporting, and patient recruitment details. The identified evidence gaps underscore the need for comparative research to determine appropriate indications and to understand whether the potential diagnostic advantage of 7‐T MRI translates to a tangible clinical benefit for patients. Future studies should include clinically relevant patient outcomes that go beyond radiological metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Journal of Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 184016544
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Assessment of the available evidence for the use of 7‐Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, with comparison to 3‐T and 1.5‐T MRI: A systematic scoping review.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Radojewski%2C+Piotr%22">Radojewski, Piotr</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Piredda%2C+Gian+Franco%22">Piredda, Gian Franco</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bonanno%2C+Gabriele%22">Bonanno, Gabriele</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lövblad%2C+Karl‐Olof%22">Lövblad, Karl‐Olof</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vargas%2C+Maria+Isabel%22">Vargas, Maria Isabel</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sutter%2C+Reto%22">Sutter, Reto</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nanz%2C+Daniel%22">Nanz, Daniel</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karrer%2C+Tanya%22">Karrer, Tanya</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salanti%2C+Georgia%22">Salanti, Georgia</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wiest%2C+Roland%22">Wiest, Roland</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22European+Journal+of+Neurology%22">European Journal of Neurology</searchLink>. Jan2025, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p1-8. 8p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Magnetic+resonance+imaging%22">Magnetic resonance imaging</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neurological+disorders%22">Neurological disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empirical+research%22">Empirical research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+analysis%22">Critical analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Signal-to-noise+ratio%22">Signal-to-noise ratio</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Musculoskeletal+system+diseases%22">Musculoskeletal system diseases</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+studies%22">Comparative studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Image+analysis%22">Image analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Ultra‐high‐field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at a field strength of 7 Tesla (T) has marked a significant milestone in diagnostic imaging since it was approved for clinical use in 2017. Despite the potential to improve image analysis by advances in signal‐to‐noise ratio, and improved spatial resolution and metabolic imaging, the clinical implementation of 7‐T MRI remains limited. Factors that contribute to this limited availability are the high price, the operating costs, the need for specifically educated personnel, and lack of evidence of clinical benefit. Methods: The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the evidence of the clinical advantages of 7‐T MRI versus MRI at lower field strengths, complementary imaging modalities, and diagnostic standard approaches for neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and Web of Science for this review. Results: We identified 1966 studies, of which 83 were included in our review. Most studies (73 studies, 88%) examined neurological indications, nine studies (11%) examined musculoskeletal indications, and one study reported on peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Of the neuroimaging indications, cerebrovascular diseases were the most frequently investigated (14 studies), followed by multiple sclerosis (13 studies) and epilepsy (11 studies). Conclusion: The available comparative evidence varied greatly across indications, with the best‐documented evidence being for imaging of epilepsy. Risk of bias overall was high, with limitations in blinding information, study design reporting, and patient recruitment details. The identified evidence gaps underscore the need for comparative research to determine appropriate indications and to understand whether the potential diagnostic advantage of 7‐T MRI translates to a tangible clinical benefit for patients. Future studies should include clinically relevant patient outcomes that go beyond radiological metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of European Journal of Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=184016544
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ene.16557
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Magnetic resonance imaging
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neurological disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Empirical research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Critical analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Signal-to-noise ratio
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Musculoskeletal system diseases
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Image analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Assessment of the available evidence for the use of 7‐Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, with comparison to 3‐T and 1.5‐T MRI: A systematic scoping review.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Radojewski, Piotr
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Piredda, Gian Franco
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bonanno, Gabriele
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lövblad, Karl‐Olof
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vargas, Maria Isabel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sutter, Reto
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nanz, Daniel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karrer, Tanya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Salanti, Georgia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wiest, Roland
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Text: Jan2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 13515101
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Neurology
              Type: main
ResultId 1