Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22886375›Full record

ReviewPediatric radiology2012

The challenges of neonatal magnetic resonance imaging.

Owen J Arthurs, Andrea Edwards, Topun Austin, Martin J Graves, David J Lomas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Rapid anatomical imaging of the neonatal brain using TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Improved neonatal brain MRI segmentation by interpolation of motion corrupted slices.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Expert consensus on the clinical practice of neonatal brain magnetic resonance imaging.Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Owen J ArthursDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. oja20@cam.ac.uk
Andrea Edwards
Topun Austin
Martin J Graves
David J Lomas
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0807-14149Medical Research Council G0800411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improved neonatal survival rates and antenatal diagnostic imaging is generating a growing demand for postnatal MRI examinations. Neonatal brain MRI is now becoming standard clinical care in many settings, but with the exception of some research centres, the technique has not been optimised for imaging neonates and small children. Here, we review some of the challenges involved in neonatal MRI, including recent advances in overall MR practicality and nursing practice, to address some of the ways in which the MR experience could be made more neonate-friendly.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignFemaleHumansImage EnhancementInfant, NewbornInfant, Newborn, DiseasesIntensive Care, NeonatalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMale

Identifiers

PMID22886375
OpenAlexW2062961083

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.