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

SINAPSE Collaborative Grp; Joanna M. Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M. Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Munoz-Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui (Terry) 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

doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8

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

SINAPSE Collaborative Grp, Joanna M. Wardlaw^*, Will Brindle, Ana M. Casado, Kirsten Shuler, Moira Henderson, Brenda Thomas, Jennifer Macfarlane, Susana Munoz-Maniega, Katherine Lymer, Zoe Morris, Cyril Pernet, William Nailon, Trevor Ahearn, Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni, Carlos Mugruza, John McLean, Goultchira Chakirova, Yuehui (Terry) Tao, Johanna SimpsonAndrew C. Stanfield, Harriet Johnston, Jehill Parikh, Natalie A. Royle, Janet De Wilde, Mark E. Bastin, Nick Weir, Andrew Farrall, Maria C Valdes Hernandez

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract / Description of output

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 accuracyat 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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	2295-2303
Number of pages	9
Journal	European Radiology
Volume	22
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8
Publication status	Published - Nov 2012

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Neuroimaging
Reproducibility of Results
Humans
Diagnostic Imaging
Brain
Predictive Value of Tests
Research Design
Brain Mapping
Neoplasms
Multiple Sclerosis
Biomedical Research
Signal-To-Noise Ratio

Access to Document

10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00330-012-2500-8

SINAPSE - sub budget - Edinburgh
Wardlaw, J.
UK central government bodies/local authorities, health and hospital authorities
1/12/09 → 31/12/14
Project: Research
Scottish Imaging Network : A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE)
Wardlaw, J.
UK central government bodies/local authorities, health and hospital authorities
1/08/07 → 31/12/14
Project: Research

Cite this

SINAPSE Collaborative Grp, Wardlaw, J. M., Brindle, W., Casado, A. M., Shuler, K., Henderson, M., Thomas, B., Macfarlane, J., Munoz-Maniega, S., Lymer, K., Morris, Z., Pernet, C., Nailon, W., Ahearn, T., Mumuni, A. N., Mugruza, C., McLean, J., Chakirova, G., Tao, Y., ... Valdes Hernandez, M. C. (2012). A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research. European Radiology, 22(11), 2295-2303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8

@article{8e09e6f0b7d24300bc355d442681ebc0,

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

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 accuracyat 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.",

keywords = "Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuroimaging, Reproducibility of Results, Humans, Diagnostic Imaging, Brain, Predictive Value of Tests, Research Design, Brain Mapping, Neoplasms, Multiple Sclerosis, Biomedical Research, Signal-To-Noise Ratio",

author = "{SINAPSE Collaborative Grp} and Wardlaw, {Joanna M.} and Will Brindle and Casado, {Ana M.} and Kirsten Shuler and Moira Henderson and Brenda Thomas and Jennifer Macfarlane and Susana Munoz-Maniega and Katherine Lymer and Zoe Morris and Cyril Pernet and William Nailon and Trevor Ahearn and Mumuni, {Abdul Nashirudeen} and Carlos Mugruza and John McLean and Goultchira Chakirova and Tao, {Yuehui (Terry)} and Johanna Simpson and Stanfield, {Andrew C.} and Harriet Johnston and Jehill Parikh and Royle, {Natalie A.} and {De Wilde}, Janet and Bastin, {Mark E.} and Nick Weir and Andrew Farrall and {Valdes Hernandez}, {Maria C}",

year = "2012",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "2295--2303",

journal = "European Radiology",

issn = "0938-7994",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "11",

}

SINAPSE Collaborative Grp, Wardlaw, JM, Brindle, W, Casado, AM, Shuler, K, Henderson, M, Thomas, B, Macfarlane, J, Munoz-Maniega, S, Lymer, K, Morris, Z, Pernet, C , Nailon, W, Ahearn, T, Mumuni, AN, Mugruza, C, McLean, J, Chakirova, G, Tao, Y, Simpson, J, Stanfield, AC, Johnston, H, Parikh, J, Royle, NA, De Wilde, J, Bastin, ME, Weir, N, Farrall, A & Valdes Hernandez, MC 2012, 'A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research', European Radiology, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 2295-2303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research

AU - SINAPSE Collaborative Grp

AU - Wardlaw, Joanna M.

AU - Brindle, Will

AU - Casado, Ana M.

AU - Shuler, Kirsten

AU - Henderson, Moira

AU - Thomas, Brenda

AU - Macfarlane, Jennifer

AU - Munoz-Maniega, Susana

AU - Lymer, Katherine

AU - Morris, Zoe

AU - Pernet, Cyril

AU - Nailon, William

AU - Ahearn, Trevor

AU - Mumuni, Abdul Nashirudeen

AU - Mugruza, Carlos

AU - McLean, John

AU - Chakirova, Goultchira

AU - Tao, Yuehui (Terry)

AU - Simpson, Johanna

AU - Stanfield, Andrew C.

AU - Johnston, Harriet

AU - Parikh, Jehill

AU - Royle, Natalie A.

AU - De Wilde, Janet

AU - Bastin, Mark E.

AU - Weir, Nick

AU - Farrall, Andrew

AU - Valdes Hernandez, Maria C

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - 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 accuracyat 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.

AB - 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 accuracyat 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.

KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging

KW - Neuroimaging

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Humans

KW - Diagnostic Imaging

KW - Brain

KW - Predictive Value of Tests

KW - Research Design

KW - Brain Mapping

KW - Neoplasms

KW - Multiple Sclerosis

KW - Biomedical Research

KW - Signal-To-Noise Ratio

U2 - 10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8

DO - 10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 22684343

SN - 0938-7994

VL - 22

SP - 2295

EP - 2303

JO - European Radiology

JF - European Radiology

IS - 11

ER -

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

Abstract / Description of output

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Projects

SINAPSE - sub budget - Edinburgh

Scottish Imaging Network : A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE)

Cite this