Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21887259›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2011

Reduction of claustrophobia with short-bore versus open magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized controlled trial.

Judith Enders, Elke Zimmermann, Matthias Rief, Peter Martus, Randolf Klingebiel, Patrick Asbach, Christian Klessen, Gerd Diederichs, Moritz Wagner, Ulf Teichgräber and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00715806 (Reduction of Claustrophobia During Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT00715806 nacompletednot on this map

Reduction of Claustrophobia During Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Randomized, Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2008 to 2009Enrolled174ConditionsClaustrophobiaArmsOpen MRI scanner., Closed MRI scanner.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. [American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. The use of structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound ensures time-efficiency and report quality during residency.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Judith EndersDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Elke Zimmermann
Matthias Rief
Peter Martus
Randolf Klingebiel
Patrick Asbach
Christian Klessen
Gerd Diederichs
Moritz Wagner
Ulf Teichgräber
Thomas Bengner
Bernd Hamm
Marc Dewey

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClaustrophobia is a common problem precluding MR imaging. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether a short-bore or an open magnetic resonance (MR) scanner is superior in alleviating claustrophobia.

methodsInstitutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained to compare short-bore versus open MR. From June 2008 to August 2009, 174 patients (139 women; mean age = 53.1 [SD 12.8]) with an overall mean score of 2.4 (SD 0.7, range 0 to 4) on the Claustrophobia Questionnaire (CLQ) and a clinical indication for imaging, were randomly assigned to receive evaluation by open or by short-bore MR. The primary outcomes were incomplete MR examinations due to a claustrophobic event. Follow-up was conducted 7 months after MR imaging. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat strategy.

resultsWith 33 claustrophobic events in the short-bore group (39% [95% confidence interval [CI] 28% to 50%) versus 23 in the open scanner group (26% [95% CI 18% to 37%]; P = 0.08) the difference was not significant. Patients with an event were in the examination room for 3.8 min (SD 4.4) in the short-bore and for 8.5 min (SD 7) in the open group (P = 0.004). This was due to an earlier occurrence of events in the short-bore group. The CLQ suffocation subscale was significantly associated with the occurrence of claustrophobic events (P = 0.003). New findings that explained symptoms were found in 69% of MR examinations and led to changes in medical treatment in 47% and surgery in 10% of patients. After 7 months, perceived claustrophobia increased in 32% of patients with events versus in only 11% of patients without events (P = 0.004).

conclusionsEven recent MR cannot prevent claustrophobia suggesting that further developments to create a more patient-centered MR scanner environment are needed.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00715806.

Indexed as

AnxietyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPhobic DisordersSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID21887259
PMCPMC3161742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.