A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Clinical indications and acquisition protocol for the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in head and neck cancer squamous cell carcinoma: recommendations from an expert panel. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The clinical role of perfusion-weighted MRI (PWI) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remains to be defined. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of PWI sequence in HNSCC with regard to clinical indications and acquisition parameters.

Methods: Public databases were searched, and selected papers evaluated applying the Oxford criteria 2011. A questionnaire was prepared including statements on clinical indications of PWI as well as its acquisition technique and submitted to selected panelists who worked in anonymity using a modified Delphi approach. Each panelist was asked to rate each statement using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Statements with scores equal or inferior to 5 assigned by at least two panelists were revised and re-submitted for the subsequent Delphi round to reach a final consensus.

Results: Two Delphi rounds were conducted. The final questionnaire consisted of 6 statements on clinical indications of PWI and 9 statements on the acquisition technique of PWI. Four of 19 (21%) statements obtained scores equal or inferior to 5 by two panelists, all dealing with clinical indications. The Delphi process was considered concluded as reasons entered by panelists for lower scores were mainly related to the lack of robust evidence, so that no further modifications were suggested.

Conclusions: Evidence-based recommendations on the use of PWI have been provided by an independent panel of experts worldwide, encouraging a standardized use of PWI across university and research centers to produce more robust evidence.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759606PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01317-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

clinical indications
20
indications acquisition
8
head neck
8
squamous cell
8
cell carcinoma
8
evidence-based recommendations
8
recommendations pwi
8
statements clinical
8
indications pwi
8
acquisition technique
8

Similar Publications