Title |
Minimum Reporting Standards for in vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRSinMRS): Experts' consensus recommendations
|
---|---|
Published in |
NMR in Biomedicine, February 2021
|
DOI | 10.1002/nbm.4484 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Alexander Lin, Ovidiu Andronesi, Wolfgang Bogner, In‐Young Choi, Eduardo Coello, Cristina Cudalbu, Christoph Juchem, Graham J. Kemp, Roland Kreis, Martin Krššák, Phil Lee, Andrew A. Maudsley, Martin Meyerspeer, Vladamir Mlynarik, Jamie Near, Gülin Öz, Aimie L. Peek, Nicolaas A. Puts, Eva‐Maria Ratai, Ivan Tkáč, Paul G. Mullins, Experts' Working Group on Reporting Standards for MR Spectroscopy |
Abstract |
The translation of MRS to clinical practice has been impeded by the lack of technical standardization. There are multiple methods of acquisition, post-processing, and analysis whose details greatly impact the interpretation of the results. These details are often not fully reported, making it difficult to assess MRS studies on a standardized basis. This hampers the reviewing of manuscripts, limits the reproducibility of study results, and complicates meta-analysis of the literature. In this paper a consensus group of MRS experts provides minimum guidelines for the reporting of MRS methods and results, including the standardized description of MRS hardware, data acquisition, analysis, and quality assessment. This consensus statement describes each of these requirements in detail and includes a checklist to assist authors and journal reviewers and to provide a practical way for journal editors to ensure that MRS studies are reported in full. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 7 | 14% |
Australia | 6 | 12% |
United States | 4 | 8% |
Canada | 2 | 4% |
Brazil | 1 | 2% |
Sweden | 1 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Austria | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 25 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 25 | 51% |
Scientists | 22 | 45% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 141 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 22% |
Researcher | 20 | 14% |
Student > Master | 15 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
Other | 18 | 13% |
Unknown | 41 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Neuroscience | 32 | 23% |
Engineering | 11 | 8% |
Physics and Astronomy | 10 | 7% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
Other | 22 | 16% |
Unknown | 52 | 37% |