Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/149226
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorMendelsohn, Zoe-
dc.contributor.authorPemberton, Hugh-
dc.contributor.authorGray, James-
dc.contributor.authorGoodkin, Olivia-
dc.contributor.authorPrados Carrasco, Ferran-
dc.contributor.authorScheel, Michael-
dc.contributor.authorNawabi, Jawed-
dc.contributor.authorBarkhof, Frederik-
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-22T08:45:51Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-22T08:45:51Z-
dc.date.issued2022-11-04-
dc.identifier.citationMendelsohn, Z. [Zoe], Pemberton, H.G. [Hugh G.], Gray, J. [James], Goodkin, O. [Olivia], Prados, F. [Ferran], Scheel, M. [Michael], Nawabi, J. [Jawed], & Barkhof, F. [Frederik] (2022). Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence. Neuroradiology, 65(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1007/s00234-022-03074-w-
dc.identifier.issn0028-3940MIAR
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10609/149226-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: MRI is integral to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and is important for clinical prognostication. Quantitative volumetric reporting tools (QReports) can improve the accuracy and objectivity of MRI-based assessments. Several QReports are commercially available; however, validation can be difficult to establish and does not currently follow a common pathway. To aid evidence-based clinical decision-making, we performed a systematic review of commercial QReports for use in MS including technical details and published reports of validation and in-use evaluation. Methods: We categorized studies into three types of testing: technical validation, for example, comparison to manual segmentation, clinical validation by clinicians or interpretation of results alongside clinician-rated variables, and in-use evaluation, such as health economic assessment. Results: We identified 10 companies, which provide MS lesion and brain segmentation and volume quantification, and 38 relevant publications. Tools received regulatory approval between 2006 and 2020, contextualize results to normative reference populations, ranging from 620 to 8000 subjects, and require T1- and T2-FLAIR-weighted input sequences for longitudinal assessment of whole-brain volume and lesions. In MS, six QReports provided evidence of technical validation, four companies have conducted clinical validation by correlating results with clinical variables, only one has tested their QReport by clinician end-users, and one has performed a simulated in-use socioeconomic evaluation. Conclusion: We conclude that there is limited evidence in the literature regarding clinical validation and in-use evaluation of commercial MS QReports with a particular lack of clinician end-user testing. Our systematic review provides clinicians and institutions with the available evidence when considering adopting a quantitative reporting tool for MS.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfca
dc.language.isoengca
dc.publisherSpringerca
dc.relation.ispartofNeuroradiology, 2022, 65(1)ca
dc.relation.urihttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00234-022-03074-w-
dc.rightsCC BY-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/-
dc.subjectMRIen
dc.subjectmultiple sclerosisen
dc.subjectquantitative volumetric reporting toolsen
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen
dc.subjectvalidationen
dc.titleCommercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidenceen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/review-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess-
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03074-w-
dc.gir.idAR/0000010274-
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
Aparece en las colecciones: Articles
Articles cientÍfics

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato  
Mendelsohn_n_commercial.pdf971,11 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Comparte:
Exporta:
Consulta las estadísticas

Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons