A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research
- First Online:
- 1.1k Downloads
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.
• Higher field strength MRI may improve image quality and diagnostic accuracy.
• There are few direct comparisons of 1.5 and 3 T MRI.
• Theoretical doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio in practice was only 25 %.
• Objective evidence of improved routine clinical diagnosis is lacking.
• Other aspects of technology improved images more than field strength.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Sensitivity and specificity Brain Neuroimaging Systematic review
- 1.Wellcome Trust (2011) Human functional brain imaging 1990–2009: portfolio review. Wellcome Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 6.Millennium Research Group (2011) Funding frugality: US health care facilities reduce imaging spending. http://mrg.net/News-and-Events/Medtech-Confidence-Index/Funding-Frugality.aspx. Accessed 9 Nov 2011
- 7.McKinsey Global Institute (2008) Accounting for the cost of U.S. health care: a new look at why Americans spend more. http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Americas/Accounting_for_the_cost_of_US_health_care. Accessed 11 Nov 2011
- 36.Wattjes MP, Lutterbey GG, Harzheim M et al (2006) Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: an intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 16:2067–2073PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Anzalone N, Scomazzoni F, Cirillo M et al (2008) Follow-up of coiled cerebral aneurysms: comparison of three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography at 3 Tesla with three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 43:559–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Barth M, Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Reichenbach JR et al (2003) High-resolution three-dimensional contrast-enhanced blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance venography of brain tumors at 3 Tesla: first clinical experience and comparison with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 38:409–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 52.Agati R, Maffei M, Bacci A, Cevolani D, Battaglia S, Leonardi M (2004) 3 T MR assessment of pituitary microadenomas: a report of six cases. Riv Neuroradiol 17:890–895Google Scholar