Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21678113›Full record

ReviewPediatric radiology2011

Paediatric MRI under sedation: is it necessary? What is the evidence for the alternatives?

Andrea D Edwards, Owen J Arthurs

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrea D EdwardsDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Owen J Arthurs

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To achieve diagnostic images during MRI examinations, small children need to lie still to avoid movement artefact. To reduce patient motion, obviate the need for voluntary immobilisation or breath-holding and therefore obtain high-quality images, MRI of infants is frequently carried out under sedation or general anaesthesia, but this is not without risk and expense. However, many other techniques are available for preparing children for MRI, which have not been fully evaluated. Here, we evaluate the advantages and disadvantage of sedation and anaesthesia for MRI. We then evaluate the alternatives, which include neonatal comforting techniques, sleep manipulation, and appropriate adaptation of the physical environment. We summarize the evidence for their use according to an established hierarchy. Lastly, we discuss several factors that will influence the choice of imaging preparation, including patient factors, imaging factors and service provision. The choice of approach to paediatric MRI is multi-factorial, with limited scientific evidence for many of the current approaches. These considerations may enable others to image children using MRI under different circumstances.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaMagnetic Resonance ImagingProcedural SedationDecision MakingHumansPediatricsRadiology

Identifiers

PMID21678113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.