In our article “Comparison of Perfusion Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography Angiography Source Images With Perfusion-Weighted Imaging and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Patients With Acute Stroke of Less Than 6 Hours’ Duration” from the July 2004 issue of Stroke (Schramm et al),1 we reported that 19 out of 71 patients were eligible for our study at the time of screening but did not undergo the MRI examination of our study protocol. Four of these patients could not undergo MRI due to stroke severity, 1 patient had a cardiac pacemaker, and 14 patients were included in other clinical trials that were performed at our institution during the study period (8 patients were included in DIAS, 6 patients were included in TRUMBI).
We reported this as a 58% feasibility for stroke MRI, which has caused confusion and is misleading because the 14 patients, of course, could have undergone MRI in general. Therefore, in terms of “what is the feasibility of stroke MRI in general” the percentage would be 93%, which is in accordance with the literature. (Schellinger PD, Jansen O, Fiebach JB, Pohlers O, Ryssel H, Heiland S, Steiner T, Hacke W, Sartor K. Feasibility and practicality of MR imaging of stroke in the management of hyperacute cerebral ischemia. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1184–1189.)
The authors apologize for this misleading phrasing.
↵[1Correction for Vol 35, Number 7, July 2004. Pages 1652–1657.]