138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29662579)
1. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using an Open 1.0T MR Platform: A Comparative Study with a 1.5T Tunnel System.
Fischbach K; Kosiek O; Friebe B; Wybranski C; Schnackenburg B; Schmeisser A; Smid J; Ricke J; Pech M
Pol J Radiol; 2017; 82():498-505. PubMed ID: 29662579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 3D whole-heart coronary MR angiography at 1.5T in healthy volunteers: comparison between unenhanced SSFP and Gd-enhanced FLASH sequences.
Gweon HM; Kim SJ; Lee SM; Hong YJ; Kim TH
Korean J Radiol; 2011; 12(6):679-85. PubMed ID: 22043149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. MR imaging of the fetal brain at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths: comparing specific absorption rate (SAR) and image quality.
Krishnamurthy U; Neelavalli J; Mody S; Yeo L; Jella PK; Saleem S; Korzeniewski SJ; Cabrera MD; Ehterami S; Bahado-Singh RO; Katkuri Y; Haacke EM; Hernandez-Andrade E; Hassan SS; Romero R
J Perinat Med; 2015 Mar; 43(2):209-20. PubMed ID: 25324440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Open 1.0-T versus closed 1.5-T cardiac MR: Image quality assessment.
Alì M; Monti CB; Gold B; Lastella G; Papa S; Sardanelli F; Secchi F
Clin Imaging; 2020 Dec; 68():102-107. PubMed ID: 32585415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of medium T2-weighted fast spin echo, T1-weighted two-dimensional and three-dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences.
Fischbach F; Bruhn H; Unterhauser F; Ricke J; Wieners G; Felix R; Weiler A; Schröder RJ
Acta Radiol; 2005 Feb; 46(1):67-73. PubMed ID: 15841742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Myocardial strain in healthy adults across a broad age range as revealed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 and 3.0T: Associations of myocardial strain with myocardial region, age, and sex.
Mangion K; Clerfond G; McComb C; Carrick D; Rauhalammi SM; McClure J; Corcoran DS; Woodward R; Orchard V; Radjenovic A; Zhong X; Berry C
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2016 Nov; 44(5):1197-1205. PubMed ID: 27104306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of optimised 3D turbo spin echo and gradient echo MR pulse sequences of the knee at 3T and 1.5T.
Abdulaal OM; Rainford L; MacMahon PJ; Kenny P; Carty F; Galligan M; Cradock A; Alhazmi FH; McGee A
Radiography (Lond); 2021 May; 27(2):389-397. PubMed ID: 33036913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences.
Kornaat PR; Reeder SB; Koo S; Brittain JH; Yu H; Andriacchi TP; Gold GE
Osteoarthritis Cartilage; 2005 Apr; 13(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 15780647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cranial nerves in the posterior fossa: a comparative study of t2-weighted spin-echo sequences at 1.5 and 3.0 tesla.
Fischbach F; Müller M; Bruhn H
Acta Radiol; 2008 Apr; 49(3):358-63. PubMed ID: 18365827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Three-dimensional breathhold SSFP coronary MRA: a comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T.
Bi X; Deshpande V; Simonetti O; Laub G; Li D
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2005 Aug; 22(2):206-12. PubMed ID: 16028242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Double inversion black-blood fast spin-echo imaging of the human heart: a comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T.
Greenman RL; Shirosky JE; Mulkern RV; Rofsky NM
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2003 Jun; 17(6):648-55. PubMed ID: 12766893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0T and 1.5T MR imaging of the liver in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver disease.
Tsurusaki M; Semelka RC; Zapparoli M; Elias J; Altun E; Pamuklar E; Sugimura K
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Nov; 72(2):314-20. PubMed ID: 18789840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Myocardial T2* Imaging at 3T and 1.5T: A Pilot Study with Phantom and Normal Myocardium.
Chang S; Park J; Yang YJ; Beck KS; Kim PK; Choi BW; Jung JI
J Cardiovasc Dev Dis; 2022 Aug; 9(8):. PubMed ID: 36005435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. More Space, Less Noise-New-generation Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems Can Improve Patient Comfort: A Prospective 0.55T-1.5T-Scanner Comparison.
Rusche T; Vosshenrich J; Winkel DJ; Donners R; Segeroth M; Bach M; Merkle EM; Breit HC
J Clin Med; 2022 Nov; 11(22):. PubMed ID: 36431182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Advances of 3T MR imaging in visualizing trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus are partially SNR-independent: analysis using simulated noise in relation to micro-CT, 1.5T MRI, and biomechanical strength.
Bauer JS; Monetti R; Krug R; Matsuura M; Mueller D; Eckstein F; Rummeny EJ; Lochmueller EM; Raeth CW; Link TM
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2009 Jan; 29(1):132-40. PubMed ID: 19097112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical feasibility study for detection of myocardial oedema by a cine SSFP sequence in comparison to a conventional T2-weighted sequence.
Steen H; Voss F; André F; Neizel M; Schäufele T; Lehrke S; Lossnitzer D; Giannitsis E; Katus HA
Clin Res Cardiol; 2012 Feb; 101(2):125-31. PubMed ID: 22038389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Typical readout durations in spiral cine DENSE yield blurred images and underestimate cardiac strains at both 3.0 T and 1.5 T.
Wehner GJ; Suever JD; Fielden SW; Powell DK; Hamlet SM; Vandsburger MH; Haggerty CM; Zhong X; Fornwalt BK
Magn Reson Imaging; 2018 Dec; 54():90-100. PubMed ID: 30099059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets.
Bangard C; Paszek J; Berg F; Eyl G; Kessler J; Lackner K; Gossmann A
Eur J Radiol; 2007 Oct; 64(1):152-7. PubMed ID: 17374468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of high magnetic field strengths and parallel acquisition strategies on image quality in cardiac 2D CINE magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T.
Gutberlet M; Schwinge K; Freyhardt P; Spors B; Grothoff M; Denecke T; Lüdemann L; Noeske R; Niendorf T; Felix R
Eur Radiol; 2005 Aug; 15(8):1586-97. PubMed ID: 15875193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of an endorectal coil for 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate at 3.0T in comparison to 1.5T: Do we need an endorectal coil?
Hoffner MK; Huebner F; Scholtz JE; Zangos S; Schulz B; Luboldt W; Vogl TJ; Bodelle B
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Aug; 85(8):1432-8. PubMed ID: 27423684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
