Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Respirol. Mar 28, 2017; 7(1): 1-16
Published online Mar 28, 2017. doi: 10.5320/wjr.v7.i1.1
Table 7 Summary of studies comparing magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Ref.YearPt No.VariablesResults
Ley et al[96]200413ADC and EI vs FEV1ADC vs FEV1, R = 0.7 EI vs FEV1, R = 0.5 MLD vs FEV1, R = 0.4
Ohno et al[93]200871O2 enhanced MRI (mean wash in time and relative enhancement ratio), CT defined lung volumes vs lung functionMean wash in time vs FEV1, r = -0.74 Relative Enhancement Ratio vs KCO, r = 0.66 CT lung volume vs FEV1, r = 0.61 CT lung volume vs KCO, r = 0.56
Van Beek et al[98]200994ADC and MLD vs FEV1/FVC and DLCOADC vs Fev1/fvc, r = 0.5 MLD vs Fev1/fvc, r = 0.52 ADC vs DLCO, r = 0.59 MLD vs DLCO, r = 0.29
Diaz et al[38]200927ADC and EI vs FEV1 and DLCOADC vs FEV1, r = 0.67 EI vs FEV1, r = 0.55 ADC vs DLCO, r = -0.82 Perc15 vs DLCO, r = 0.6
Quirk et al[114]201130Hyperpolarised He vs CT density in at risk smokersLung morphometry vs %LAA 950: Significant difference seen in those still smoke, not on CT
Xia et al[101]201455+ve rate of Perfusion defects vs CT changesEarly COPD: MRI detected 8/8, vs CT 3/8 P = 0.003 Mod. COPD: MRI detected 9/9, vs CT 7/9 P = 0.47
Hueper et al[95]2015144DCE-MRI vs CT densityPMBF vs %LAA 950: Evidence of non-linearity, P = 0.015