A Systematic Review of the Variability of Ventilation Defect Percent Generated From Hyperpolarized Noble Gas Pulmonary Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1002/jmri.29746
Vanessa M Diamond, Laura C Bell, Jeffrey N Bone, Bastiaan Driehuys, Martha Menchaca, Giles Santyr, Sarah Svenningsen, Robert P Thomen, Helen Marshall, Laurie J Smith, Guilhem J Collier, Jim M Wild, Jason C Woods, Sean B Fain, Rachel L Eddy, Jonathan H Rayment
{"title":"A Systematic Review of the Variability of Ventilation Defect Percent Generated From Hyperpolarized Noble Gas Pulmonary Magnetic Resonance Imaging.","authors":"Vanessa M Diamond, Laura C Bell, Jeffrey N Bone, Bastiaan Driehuys, Martha Menchaca, Giles Santyr, Sarah Svenningsen, Robert P Thomen, Helen Marshall, Laurie J Smith, Guilhem J Collier, Jim M Wild, Jason C Woods, Sean B Fain, Rachel L Eddy, Jonathan H Rayment","doi":"10.1002/jmri.29746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hyperpolarized (HP) gas pulmonary MR ventilation images are typically quantified using ventilation defect percent (VDP); however, the test-retest variability of VDP has not been systematically established in multi-center trials. Herein, we perform a systematic review of the test-retest literature on the variability of VDP, and similar metrics, generated from HP MRI. This review utilizes the Medline, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews databases and includes studies that assessed the variability of HP MRI VDP. The protocol was registered to PROSPERO: CRD42022328535. Imaging techniques and statistical analysis characteristics were extracted and used to group studies to evaluate the overall ability to pool data across grouped studies. The ability to pool data to provide systematic evidence was assessed using a modified COSMIN tool. A total of 22 studies with 37 distinct aims for repeated HP MRI acquisition or quantification were included. Studies were grouped into six categories based on HP gas and analysis type: repeated imaging (<sup>129</sup>Xe n = 13, <sup>3</sup>He n = 12), interobserver repeated analysis (<sup>129</sup>Xe n = 4, <sup>3</sup>He n = 4) or intraobserver repeated analysis (<sup>129</sup>Xe n = 1, <sup>3</sup>He n = 2). Studies assessed variability using a variety of statistical tests including absolute difference, percent coefficient of variation, Bland-Altman limits of agreement, coefficient of reproducibility, or the intra-class correlation. Individual studies generally reported low variability of VDP (ICC range: 0.5-1.0; Bland-Altman bias range: -6.9-20%), but there was an overall inability to pool data and provide a meta-analysis due to methodological inconsistencies and small sample size. Overall, we found that VDP has low variability in most studies. However, inconsistent image acquisition and quantification methodologies between studies limits direct comparability and precludes grouping of study data for meta-analyses. Despite early efforts to standardize HP MRI acquisition, further work is necessary to standardize VDP quantification to allow broader validation and clinical implementation. Evidence Level: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3.</p>","PeriodicalId":16140,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.29746","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hyperpolarized (HP) gas pulmonary MR ventilation images are typically quantified using ventilation defect percent (VDP); however, the test-retest variability of VDP has not been systematically established in multi-center trials. Herein, we perform a systematic review of the test-retest literature on the variability of VDP, and similar metrics, generated from HP MRI. This review utilizes the Medline, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews databases and includes studies that assessed the variability of HP MRI VDP. The protocol was registered to PROSPERO: CRD42022328535. Imaging techniques and statistical analysis characteristics were extracted and used to group studies to evaluate the overall ability to pool data across grouped studies. The ability to pool data to provide systematic evidence was assessed using a modified COSMIN tool. A total of 22 studies with 37 distinct aims for repeated HP MRI acquisition or quantification were included. Studies were grouped into six categories based on HP gas and analysis type: repeated imaging (129Xe n = 13, 3He n = 12), interobserver repeated analysis (129Xe n = 4, 3He n = 4) or intraobserver repeated analysis (129Xe n = 1, 3He n = 2). Studies assessed variability using a variety of statistical tests including absolute difference, percent coefficient of variation, Bland-Altman limits of agreement, coefficient of reproducibility, or the intra-class correlation. Individual studies generally reported low variability of VDP (ICC range: 0.5-1.0; Bland-Altman bias range: -6.9-20%), but there was an overall inability to pool data and provide a meta-analysis due to methodological inconsistencies and small sample size. Overall, we found that VDP has low variability in most studies. However, inconsistent image acquisition and quantification methodologies between studies limits direct comparability and precludes grouping of study data for meta-analyses. Despite early efforts to standardize HP MRI acquisition, further work is necessary to standardize VDP quantification to allow broader validation and clinical implementation. Evidence Level: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
6.80%
发文量
494
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI) is an international journal devoted to the timely publication of basic and clinical research, educational and review articles, and other information related to the diagnostic applications of magnetic resonance.
期刊最新文献
Editorial for "Associations of Postencephalitic Epilepsy Using Multi-Contrast Whole Brain MRI: A Large Self-Supervised Vision Foundation Model Strategy". A Systematic Review of the Variability of Ventilation Defect Percent Generated From Hyperpolarized Noble Gas Pulmonary Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Diagnostic Accuracy of 1H-MRS Using PRESS and MEGA-PRESS Techniques in the Preoperative Grading of Patients With Gliomas. Current State of Evidence for Use of MRI in LI-RADS. Editorial for "Evaluating the Potential of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for Detecting Iron Deposition of Renal Fibrosis in a Rabbit Model".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1