Evidence Hub

Thalamic Magnetic Susceptibility (χ) Alterations in Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping Studies

Ghaderi S, Mohammadi S, Ahmadzadeh AM, Darmiani K, Arab Bafrani M, Jashirenezhad N, Helfi M, Alibabaei S et al.

Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025

696 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) provides a non-invasive post-processing method to investigate alterations in magnetic susceptibility (χ), reflecting iron content within brain regions implicated in neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs).

Purpose: To investigate alterations in thalamic χ in patients with NDDs using QSM.

Study type: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Population: A total of 696 patients with NDDs and 760 healthy controls (HCs) were included in 27 studies.

Field strength/sequence: Three-dimensional multi-echo gradient echo sequence for QSM at mostly 3 Tesla.

Assessment: Studies reporting QSM values in the thalamus of patients with NDDs were included. Following PRISMA 2020, we searched the four major databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for peer-reviewed studies published until October 2024.

Statistical tests: Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) between patients and HCs.

Results: The pooled SMD indicated a significant increase in thalamic χ in NDDs compared to HCs (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.05-0.79; k = 27). Notably, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients showed a significant increase in thalamic χ (1.09, 95% CI: 0.65-1.53, k = 2) compared to HCs. Subgroup analyses revealed significant χ alterations in younger patients (mean age ≤ 62 years; 0.56, 95% CI: 0.10-1.02, k = 11) and studies using greater coil channels (coil channels > 16; 0.64, 95% CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 696 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free