Cited by 237Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diffusion tensor imaging studies of mild traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis

Open access
Aoki, Yuta, Inokuchi, Ryota, Gunshin, Masataka, Yahagi, Naoki, Suwa, Hiroshi·2012·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the possibility that diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) can detect white matter damage in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) patients via systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: DTI studies that compared mTBI patients and controls were searched using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, (1980 through April 2012). RESULTS: A comprehensive literature search identified 28 DTI studies, of which 13 independent DTI studies of mTBI patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. Random effect model demonstrated significant fractional anisotropy (FA) reduction in the corpus callosum (CC) (p=0.023, 95% CIs -0.466 to -0.035, 280 mTBIs and 244 controls) with no publication bias and minimum heterogeneity, and a significant increase in mean diffusivity (MD) (p=0.015, 95% CIs 0.062 to 0.581, 154 mTBIs and 100 controls). Meta-analyses of the subregions of the CC demonstrated in the splenium FA was significantly reduced (p=0.025, 95% CIs -0.689 to -0.046) and MD was significantly increased (p=0.013, 95% CIs 0.113 to 0.950). FA was marginally reduced in the midbody (p=0.099, 95% CIs -0.404 to 0.034), and no significant change in FA (p=0.421, 95% CIs -0.537 to 0.224) and MD (p=0.264, 95% CIs -0.120 to 0.438) in the genu of the CC. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis revealed the posterior part of the CC was more vulnerable to mTBI compared with the anterior part, and suggested the potential utility of DTI to detect white matter damage in the CC of mTBI patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302742

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Process of study selection.
Figure 1 Process of study selection.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Forest plot of FA in the CC Standardised mean differences (SMD) for FA measures in the CC between mTBI patients and control subjects. The forest plot displays SMD and 95% confidential intervals.
Figure 2 Forest plot of FA in the CC Standardised mean differences (SMD) for FA measures in the CC between mTBI patients and control subjects. The forest plot displays SMD and 95% confidential intervals.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The relationship between effect size for FA and age of study participants The effect size from each comparison of VOIs is plotted by the mean age of mTBI patients. The line of best fit shows a gradual but substantial decrease of FA.
Figure 3 The relationship between effect size for FA and age of study participants The effect size from each comparison of VOIs is plotted by the mean age of mTBI patients. The line of best fit shows a gradual but substantial decrease of FA.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 236

Metadata

Authors
Aoki, Y., Inokuchi, R., Gunshin, M., Yahagi, N., & Suwa, H.
Affiliations
  • Ebara Hospital (JP)
  • University of Tokyo Hospital (JP)
Corresponding author
Aoki, Yuta
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-07-14
Volume
83
Issue
9
Pages
870-876
ISSN
  • 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-330X
OpenAlex
W2140653640
Cited by
237
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Keywords
mild traumatic brain injury, diffusion tensor imaging, white matter injury, corpus callosum, fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, splenium, genu, midbody, white matter microstructure
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Corpus Callosum, Humans, Nerve Fibers, Myelinated, Anisotropy, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review