SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Ultra high-field SWI of the substantia nigra at 7T: reliability and consistency of the swallow-tail sign.

BMC Neurol · 2017-10-26

DOI: 10.1186/s12883-017-0975-2PMID: 29073886

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundThe loss of the swallow-tail sign of the substantia nigra has been proposed for diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Aim was to evaluate, if the sign occurs consistently in healthy subjects and if it can be reliably detected with high-resolution 7T susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI).MethodsThirteen healthy adults received SWI at 7T. 3 neuroradiologists, who were blinded to patients' diagnosis, independently classified subjects regarding the swallow-tail sign to be present or absent. Accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) as well as inter- and intra-rater reliability and internal consistency were analyzed.ResultsThe sign could be detected in 81% of the cases in consensus reading. Accuracy to detect the sign compared to the consensus was 100, 77 and 96% for the three readers with PPV reader 1/2/3 = 1/0.45/0.83 and NPV = 1/1/1. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (inter-class correlation coefficient = 0.844, alpha = 0.871). Intra-rater reliability was good to excellent (reader 1 R/L = 0.625/0.786; reader 2 = 0.7/0.64; reader 3 = 0.9/1).ConclusionThe swallow-tail sign can be reliably detected. However, our data suggest its occurrence is not consistent in healthy subjects. It may be possible that one reason is an individually variable molecular organization of nigrosome 1 so that it does not return a uniform signal in SWI.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.