TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research
AU - Wardlaw, Joanna M.
AU - Brindle, Will
AU - Casado, Ana M.
AU - Shuler, Kirsten
AU - Henderson, Moira
AU - Thomas, Brenda
AU - Macfarlane, Jennifer
AU - Maniega, Susana Munoz
AU - Lymer, Katherine
AU - Morris, Zoe
AU - Pernet, Cyril
AU - Nailon, William
AU - Ahearn, Trevor
AU - Mumuni, Abdul Nashirudeen
AU - Mugruza Vassallo, Carlos
AU - McLean, John
AU - Chakirova, Goultchira
AU - Tao, Yuehui (Terry)
AU - Simpson, Johanna
AU - Stanfield, Andrew C.
AU - Johnston, Harriet
AU - Parikh, Jehill
AU - Royle, Natalie A.
AU - De Wilde, Janet
AU - Bastin, Mark E.
AU - Weir, Nick
AU - Farrall, Andrew
AU - Hernandez, Maria C. Valdes
AU - SINAPSE Collaborative Group
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - MRI at 3 T is said to be more accurate than 1.5 T MR, but costs and other practical differences mean that it is unclear which to use.We systematically reviewed studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 3 T with 1.5 T. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources from 1 January 2000 to 22 October 2010 for studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 1.5 and 3 T in human neuroimaging. We extracted data on methodology, quality criteria, technical factors, subjects, signal-to-noise, diagnostic accuracy and errors according to QUADAS and STARD criteria.Amongst 150 studies (4,500 subjects), most were tiny, compared old 1.5 T with new 3 T technology, and only 22 (15 %) described diagnostic accuracy. The 3 T images were often described as "crisper", but we found little evidence of improved diagnosis. Improvements were limited to research applications [functional MRI (fMRI), spectroscopy, automated lesion detection]. Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio was not confirmed, mostly being 25 %. Artefacts were worse and acquisitions took slightly longer at 3 T.Objective evidence to guide MRI purchasing decisions and routine diagnostic use is lacking. Rigorous evaluation accuracy and practicalities of diagnostic imaging technologies should be the routine, as for pharmacological interventions, to improve effectiveness of healthcare.aEuro cent Higher field strength MRI may improve image quality and diagnostic accuracy.aEuro cent There are few direct comparisons of 1.5 and 3 T MRI.aEuro cent Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio in practice was only 25 %.aEuro cent Objective evidence of improved routine clinical diagnosis is lacking.aEuro cent Other aspects of technology improved images more than field strength.
AB - MRI at 3 T is said to be more accurate than 1.5 T MR, but costs and other practical differences mean that it is unclear which to use.We systematically reviewed studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 3 T with 1.5 T. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources from 1 January 2000 to 22 October 2010 for studies comparing diagnostic accuracy at 1.5 and 3 T in human neuroimaging. We extracted data on methodology, quality criteria, technical factors, subjects, signal-to-noise, diagnostic accuracy and errors according to QUADAS and STARD criteria.Amongst 150 studies (4,500 subjects), most were tiny, compared old 1.5 T with new 3 T technology, and only 22 (15 %) described diagnostic accuracy. The 3 T images were often described as "crisper", but we found little evidence of improved diagnosis. Improvements were limited to research applications [functional MRI (fMRI), spectroscopy, automated lesion detection]. Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio was not confirmed, mostly being 25 %. Artefacts were worse and acquisitions took slightly longer at 3 T.Objective evidence to guide MRI purchasing decisions and routine diagnostic use is lacking. Rigorous evaluation accuracy and practicalities of diagnostic imaging technologies should be the routine, as for pharmacological interventions, to improve effectiveness of healthcare.aEuro cent Higher field strength MRI may improve image quality and diagnostic accuracy.aEuro cent There are few direct comparisons of 1.5 and 3 T MRI.aEuro cent Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio in practice was only 25 %.aEuro cent Objective evidence of improved routine clinical diagnosis is lacking.aEuro cent Other aspects of technology improved images more than field strength.
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8
DO - 10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8
M3 - Review article
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 22
SP - 2295
EP - 2303
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 11
ER -
