4.3 Article

Impact of 3 Tesla MRI on interobserver agreement in clinically isolated syndrome: A MAGNIMS multicentre study

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 352-360

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458517751647

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; clinically isolated syndrome; magnetic resonance imaging; interobserver variation; multicentre study

Funding

  1. Dutch MS Research Foundation (Voorschoten, The Netherlands) [14-358e]
  2. National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Compared to 1.5 T, 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) increases signal-to-noise ratio leading to improved image quality. However, its clinical relevance in clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis remains uncertain. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate how 3 T MRI affects the agreement between raters on lesion detection and diagnosis. Methods: We selected 30 patients and 10 healthy controls from our ongoing prospective multicentre cohort. All subjects received baseline 1.5 and 3 T brain and spinal cord MRI. Patients also received follow-up brain MRI at 3-6months. Four experienced neuroradiologists and four less-experienced raters scored the number of lesions per anatomical region and determined dissemination in space and time (McDonald 2010). Results: In controls, the mean number of lesions per rater was 0.16 at 1.5T and 0.38 at 3T (p=0.005). For patients, this was 4.18 and 4.40, respectively (p=0.657). Inter-rater agreement on involvement per anatomical region and dissemination in space and time was moderate to good for both field strengths. 3T slightly improved agreement between experienced raters, but slightly decreased agreement between less-experienced raters. Conclusion: Overall, the interobserver agreement was moderate to good. 3T appears to improve the reading for experienced readers, underlining the benefit of additional training.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available