@misc{WippertBlockMansuyetal.2019, author = {Wippert, Pia-Maria and Block, Andrea and Mansuy, Isabelle M. and Peters, Eva M. J. and Rose, Matthias and Rapp, Michael Armin and Huppertz, Alexander and W{\"u}rtz-Kozak, Karin}, title = {Alterations in Bone Homeostasis and Microstructure Related to Depression and Allostatic Load}, series = {Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics}, volume = {88}, journal = {Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics}, number = {6}, publisher = {Karger}, address = {Basel}, issn = {0033-3190}, doi = {10.1159/000503640}, pages = {383 -- 385}, year = {2019}, language = {en} } @article{SchomoellerRischKaplicketal.2021, author = {Schom{\"o}ller, Anne and Risch, Lucie and Kaplick, Hannes and Wochatz, Monique and Engel, Tilman and Schraplau, Anne and Sonnenburg, Dominik and Huppertz, Alexander and Mayer, Frank}, title = {Inter-rater and inter-session reliability of lumbar paraspinal muscle composition in a mobile MRI device}, series = {BJR : an international journal of radiology, radiation oncology and all related sciences / British Institute of Radiology}, volume = {94}, journal = {BJR : an international journal of radiology, radiation oncology and all related sciences / British Institute of Radiology}, number = {1127}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Bognor Regis}, issn = {0007-1285}, doi = {10.1259/bjr.20210141}, pages = {6}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Objective: To assess the reliability of measurements of paraspinal muscle transverse relaxation times (T2 times) between two observers and within one observer on different time points.
Methods: 14 participants (9f/5m, 33 +/- 5 years, 176 +/- 10 cm, 73 +/- 12 kg) underwent 2 consecutive MRI scans (M1,M2) on the same day, followed by 1 MRI scan 13-14 days later (M3) in a mobile 1.5 Tesla MRI. T2 times were calculated in T-2 weighted turbo spin- echo-sequences at the spinal level of the third lumbar vertebrae (11 slices, 2 mm slice thickness, 1 mm interslice gap, echo times: 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 ms) for M. erector spinae (ES) and M. multifidius (MF). The following reliability parameter were calculated for the agreement of T2 times between two different investigators (OBS1 \& OBS2) on the same MRI (inter rater reliability, IR) and by one investigator between different MRI of the same participant (intersession variability, IS): Test-Retest Variability (TRV, Differences/Mean*100); Coefficient of Variation (CV, Standard deviation/Mean*100); Bland-Altman Analysis (systematic bias = Mean of the Differences; Upper/Lower Limits of Agreement = Bias+/-1.96*SD); Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 3.1 (ICC) with absolute agreement, as well as its 95\% confidence interval.
Results: Mean TRV for IR was 2.6\% for ES and 4.2\% for MF. Mean TRV for IS was 3.5\% (ES) and 5.1\% (MF). Mean CV for IR was 1.9 (ES) and 3.0 (MF). Mean CV for IS was 2.5\% (ES) and 3.6\% (MF). A systematic bias of 1.3 ms (ES) and 2.1 ms (MF) were detected for IR and a systematic bias of 0.4 ms (ES) and 0.07 ms (MF) for IS. ICC for IR was 0.94 (ES) and 0.87 (MF). ICC for IS was 0.88 (ES) and 0.82 (MF).
Conclusion: Reliable assessment of paraspinal muscle T2 time justifies its use for scientific purposes. The applied technique could be recommended to use for future studies that aim to assess changes of T2 times, e.g. after an intense bout of eccentric exercises.}, language = {en} } @article{BoldtLeberBonaventuraetal.2013, author = {Boldt, Julia and Leber, Alexander W. and Bonaventura, Klaus and Sohns, Christian and Stula, Martin and Huppertz, Alexander and Haverkamp, Wilhelm and Dorenkamp, Marc}, title = {Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in Germany}, series = {Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance}, volume = {15}, journal = {Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance}, number = {30}, publisher = {BioMed Central}, address = {London}, issn = {1097-6647}, doi = {10.1186/1532-429X-15-30}, pages = {11}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Background: Recent studies have demonstrated a superior diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of CMR versus single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Methods: Based on Bayes' theorem, a mathematical model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness and utility of CMR with SPECT in patients with suspected CAD. Invasive coronary angiography served as the standard of reference. Effectiveness was defined as the accurate detection of CAD, and utility as the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Model input parameters were derived from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a German health care payer's perspective. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Reimbursement fees represented only a minor fraction of the total costs incurred by a diagnostic strategy. Increases in the prevalence of CAD were generally associated with improved cost-effectiveness and decreased costs per utility unit (Delta QALY). By comparison, CMR was consistently more cost-effective than SPECT, and showed lower costs per QALY gained. Given a CAD prevalence of 0.50, CMR was associated with total costs of (sic)6,120 for one patient correctly diagnosed as having CAD and with (sic)2,246 per Delta QALY gained versus (sic)7,065 and (sic)2,931 for SPECT, respectively. Above a threshold value of CAD prevalence of 0.60, proceeding directly to invasive angiography was the most cost-effective approach. Conclusions: In patients with low to intermediate CAD probabilities, CMR is more cost-effective than SPECT. Moreover, lower costs per utility unit indicate a superior clinical utility of CMR.}, language = {en} } @misc{BoldtLeberBonaventuraetal.2013, author = {Boldt, Julia and Leber, Alexander W. and Bonaventura, Klaus and Sohns, Christian and Stula, Martin and Huppertz, Alexander and Haverkamp, Wilhelm and Dorenkamp, Marc}, title = {Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in Germany}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {551}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43010}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-430107}, pages = {11}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Background: Recent studies have demonstrated a superior diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of CMR versus single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Methods: Based on Bayes' theorem, a mathematical model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness and utility of CMR with SPECT in patients with suspected CAD. Invasive coronary angiography served as the standard of reference. Effectiveness was defined as the accurate detection of CAD, and utility as the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Model input parameters were derived from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a German health care payer's perspective. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Reimbursement fees represented only a minor fraction of the total costs incurred by a diagnostic strategy. Increases in the prevalence of CAD were generally associated with improved cost-effectiveness and decreased costs per utility unit (Delta QALY). By comparison, CMR was consistently more cost-effective than SPECT, and showed lower costs per QALY gained. Given a CAD prevalence of 0.50, CMR was associated with total costs of (sic)6,120 for one patient correctly diagnosed as having CAD and with (sic)2,246 per Delta QALY gained versus (sic)7,065 and (sic)2,931 for SPECT, respectively. Above a threshold value of CAD prevalence of 0.60, proceeding directly to invasive angiography was the most cost-effective approach. Conclusions: In patients with low to intermediate CAD probabilities, CMR is more cost-effective than SPECT. Moreover, lower costs per utility unit indicate a superior clinical utility of CMR.}, language = {en} }