Home › Research › Vascular contributions
Assessment of blood-brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review
Heye AK, Culling RD, Valdés Hernández Mdel C, Thrippleton MJ, Wardlaw JM.. NeuroImage. Clinical, 2014-09-10
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
There is increasing recognition of the importance of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption in aging, dementia, stroke and multiple sclerosis in addition to more commonly-studied pathologies such as tumors. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) is a method for studying BBB disruption in vivo. We review pathologies studied, scanning protocols and data analysis procedures to determine the range of available methods and their suitability to different pathologies. We systematically review the existing literature up to February 2014, seeking studies that assessed BBB integrity using T1-weighted DCE-MRI techniques in animals and humans in normal or abnormal brain tissues. The literature search provided 70 studies that were eligible for inclusion, involving 417 animals and 1564 human subjects in total. The pathologies most studied are intracranial neoplasms and acute ischemic strokes. There are large variations in the type of DCE-MRI sequence, the imaging protocols and the contrast agents used. Moreover, studies use a variety of different methods for data analysis, mainly based on model-free measurements and on the Patlak and Tofts models. Consequently, estimated K (Trans) values varied widely. In conclusion, DCE-MRI is shown to provide valuable information in a large variety of applications, ranging from common applications, such as grading of primary brain tumors, to more recent applications, such as assessment of subtle BBB dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. Further research is required in order to establish consensus-based recommendations for data acquisition and analysis and, hence, improve inter-study comparability and promote wider use of DCE-MRI.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Heye, A. K., Culling, R. D., Valdés Hernández Mdel, C., Thrippleton, M. J., & Wardlaw, J. M. (2014). Assessment of blood-brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review. NeuroImage. Clinical. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2014.09.002
Vancouver
Heye AK, Culling RD, Valdés Hernández Mdel C, Thrippleton MJ, Wardlaw JM. Assessment of blood-brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2014.09.002. PMID: 25379439.
BibTeX
@article{heye2014-25379439,
author = {Heye, A. K. and Culling, R. D. and Valdés Hernández Mdel, C. and Thrippleton, M. J. and Wardlaw, J. M.},
title = {{Assessment of blood-brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review}},
journal = {NeuroImage. Clinical},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1016/j.nicl.2014.09.002},
pmid = {25379439},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2014.09.002}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In conclusion, DCE-MRI is shown to provide valuable information in a large variety of applications, ranging from common applications, such as grading of primary brain tumors, to more recent applications, such as assessment of subtle BBB dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage. Clinical) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25379439) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Vascular contributions
Also tagged “vessel”
900 studies in the library carry the topic tag “vessel”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 900 tagged studies.