This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jonathan I. Wiener, MD
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology St Louis, MO 63110

Arch Neurol. 1987;44(4):361.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The article by Lesser et al¹ in the April 1986 issue lends further support to magnetic resonance imaging's superior sensitivity to computed tomography in detecting intracranial disease. The article also points out the lack of specificity of magnetic resonance imaging signal intensities (a similar problem exists in computed tomography).

There are, however, several inconsistencies that should be pointed out. First, the authors state in their "Patients and Methods" section that "The second pulse sequence was a 120-ms TE and a 2-s TR, with four averages and an examination time of nine minutes." Assuming a 128 X 256 acquisition matrix (the standard for their manufacturer, Technicare Corp), the scan time for a 2-s TR and four acquisitions (not averages; four averages implies five or more acquisitions) would be 17 minutes (128 X 2s X 4). Therefore, they must have either used only two signal acquisitions, used only . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?