A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research

Joanna M. Wardlaw, Will Brindle, Ana M. Casado, Kirsten Shuler, Moira Henderson, Brenda Thomas, Jennifer Macfarlane, Susana Munoz Maniega, Katherine Lymer, Zoe Morris, Cyril Pernet, William Nailon, Trevor Ahearn, Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni, Carlos Mugruza Vassallo, John McLean, Goultchira Chakirova, Yuehui (Terry) Tao, Johanna Simpson, Andrew C. Stanfield & 9 others Harriet Johnston, Jehill Parikh, Natalie A. Royle, Janet De Wilde, Mark E. Bastin, Nick Weir, Andrew Farrall, Maria C. Valdes Hernandez, SINAPSE Collaborative Group

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    40 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2295-2303
    Number of pages9
    JournalEuropean Radiology
    Volume22
    Issue number11
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Cite this

    Wardlaw, J. M., Brindle, W., Casado, A. M., Shuler, K., Henderson, M., Thomas, B., ... SINAPSE Collaborative Group (2012). A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research. European Radiology, 22(11), 2295-2303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8
    Wardlaw, Joanna M. ; Brindle, Will ; Casado, Ana M. ; Shuler, Kirsten ; Henderson, Moira ; Thomas, Brenda ; Macfarlane, Jennifer ; Maniega, Susana Munoz ; Lymer, Katherine ; Morris, Zoe ; Pernet, Cyril ; Nailon, William ; Ahearn, Trevor ; Mumuni, Abdul Nashirudeen ; Mugruza Vassallo, Carlos ; McLean, John ; Chakirova, Goultchira ; Tao, Yuehui (Terry) ; Simpson, Johanna ; Stanfield, Andrew C. ; Johnston, Harriet ; Parikh, Jehill ; Royle, Natalie A. ; De Wilde, Janet ; Bastin, Mark E. ; Weir, Nick ; Farrall, Andrew ; Hernandez, Maria C. Valdes ; SINAPSE Collaborative Group. / A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research. In: European Radiology. 2012 ; Vol. 22, No. 11. pp. 2295-2303.
    @article{38aa2b9302ad4d3e91b74e73d480066c,
    title = "A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research",
    abstract = "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.",
    author = "Wardlaw, {Joanna M.} and Will Brindle and Casado, {Ana M.} and Kirsten Shuler and Moira Henderson and Brenda Thomas and Jennifer Macfarlane and Maniega, {Susana Munoz} and Katherine Lymer and Zoe Morris and Cyril Pernet and William Nailon and Trevor Ahearn and Mumuni, {Abdul Nashirudeen} and {Mugruza Vassallo}, Carlos and John McLean and Goultchira Chakirova and Tao, {Yuehui (Terry)} and Johanna Simpson and Stanfield, {Andrew C.} and Harriet Johnston and Jehill Parikh and Royle, {Natalie A.} and {De Wilde}, Janet and Bastin, {Mark E.} and Nick Weir and Andrew Farrall and Hernandez, {Maria C. Valdes} and {SINAPSE Collaborative Group}",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8",
    language = "English",
    volume = "22",
    pages = "2295--2303",
    journal = "European Radiology",
    issn = "0938-7994",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",
    number = "11",

    }

    Wardlaw, JM, Brindle, W, Casado, AM, Shuler, K, Henderson, M, Thomas, B, Macfarlane, J, Maniega, SM, Lymer, K, Morris, Z, Pernet, C, Nailon, W, Ahearn, T, Mumuni, AN, Mugruza Vassallo, C, McLean, J, Chakirova, G, Tao, YT, Simpson, J, Stanfield, AC, Johnston, H, Parikh, J, Royle, NA, De Wilde, J, Bastin, ME, Weir, N, Farrall, A, Hernandez, MCV & SINAPSE Collaborative Group 2012, 'A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research', European Radiology, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 2295-2303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8

    A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research. / Wardlaw, Joanna M.; Brindle, Will; Casado, Ana M.; Shuler, Kirsten; Henderson, Moira; Thomas, Brenda; Macfarlane, Jennifer; Maniega, Susana Munoz; Lymer, Katherine; Morris, Zoe; Pernet, Cyril; Nailon, William; Ahearn, Trevor; Mumuni, Abdul Nashirudeen; Mugruza Vassallo, Carlos; McLean, John; Chakirova, Goultchira; Tao, Yuehui (Terry); Simpson, Johanna; Stanfield, Andrew C.; Johnston, Harriet; Parikh, Jehill; Royle, Natalie A.; De Wilde, Janet; Bastin, Mark E.; Weir, Nick; Farrall, Andrew; Hernandez, Maria C. Valdes; SINAPSE Collaborative Group.

    In: European Radiology, Vol. 22, No. 11, 2012, p. 2295-2303.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    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

    VL - 22

    SP - 2295

    EP - 2303

    JO - European Radiology

    JF - European Radiology

    SN - 0938-7994

    IS - 11

    ER -