4.7 Review

Measuring Quantitative Cerebral Blood Flow in Healthy Children: A Systematic Review of Neuroimaging Techniques

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28758

Keywords

cerebral blood flow; phase contrast; arterial spin labeling; pediatric; children; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cerebral blood flow (CBF) is an important parameter to assess brain health. Quantitative measurement of CBF can be obtained using medical imaging techniques. However, there is a lack of CBF data in healthy children due to difficulties in pediatric neuroimaging. Understanding the factors affecting pediatric CBF and its normal range is crucial for optimal CBF measurement in pediatric neuroradiology.
Cerebral blood flow (CBF) is an important hemodynamic parameter to evaluate brain health. It can be obtained quantitatively using medical imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography (PET). Although CBF in adults has been widely studied and linked with cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, CBF data in healthy children are sparse due to the challenges in pediatric neuroimaging. An understanding of the factors affecting pediatric CBF and its normal range is crucial to determine the optimal CBF measuring techniques in pediatric neuroradiology. This review focuses on pediatric CBF studies using neuroimaging techniques in 32 articles including 2668 normal subjects ranging from birth to 18 years old. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus and reported following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). We identified factors (such as age, gender, mood, sedation, and fitness) that have significant effects on pediatric CBF quantification. We also investigated factors influencing the CBF measurements in infants. Based on this review, we recommend best practices to improve CBF measurements in pediatric neuroimaging. Level of Evidence1 Technical EfficacyStage 2

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available