A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. KEY POINTS : • 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.

Chronic upper limb pain: an exploration of the biopsychosocial model.

OBJECTIVE: To model pain intensity and consequent disability by independent physical, psychological, and social variables in a group of patients with chronic upper limb pain. METHODS: We studied a group of 73 hospital outpatients with either chronic work related diffuse upper limb pain or carpal tunnel syndrome. We assessed pain intensity, disability, and personality by self-rated questionnaires; and psychiatric morbidity by a standardized interview. We measured illness behavior by assessing coping strategies, illness beliefs, financial benefits, and movements of the most affected limb. RESULTS: In both pain conditions, disability was positively correlated with present pain intensity, depression, helpless coping style, and receipt of state financial benefits; and was negatively correlated with age. This explained 43% of the variance and correctly classified 85% of all patients. Present pain intensity was positively correlated with both depression and the number of arm movements at night. This model explained 15% of the variance and correctly classified 75% of all patients. Inclusion of diagnostic group has no effect on these models. CONCLUSION: The correlations between disability and pain intensity with both psychosocial and physical factors support the biopsychosocial model of disability in particular, and pain to a lesser extent, irrespective of the diagnosis.

Illness behavior and psychosocial factors in diffuse upper limb pain disorder: a case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare behavioral and other psychosocial factors in patients with diffuse upper limb pain disorder (ULPD) and patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). METHODS: We compared 37 hospital outpatients with diffuse ULPD with 36 hospital outpatients with CTS, matched by sex, pain intensity, and duration of illness. We assessed psychiatric morbidity by a standardized interview, and both symptoms and personality by self-rated questionnaires. We measured illness behavior by assessing financial benefits and compensation, coping strategies, illness beliefs, treatments received, and 24 hours of monitoring movements of the most affected arm and the body as a whole. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the prevalence of either current or premorbid psychiatric disorders, personality scores, symptom amplification, disability, or treatments received. Subjects with ULPD had significantly lower self-rated scores for depression, somatic distress, sleep disturbance, and physical fatigue than subjects with CTS, although there were more than normal levels of anxiety, fatigue, and sleep disturbance in both groups. There were no significant differences in the numbers of arm or body movements by day and night. Significantly more ULPD subjects had been involved in litigation, but litigating patients were a minority. CONCLUSION: The primary etiology of endemic diffuse ULPD, presenting in secondary care, is no more psychiatric, psychological, behavioral, or related to personality than is the case with a similarly chronic and painful condition of known pathology. We cannot exclude either a specific role for psychosocial factors at work, or a more general role for psychosocial factors in maintaining disability in patients with chronic pain.