4.7 Review

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

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28758

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据