ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2014
Brain magnetic resonance imaging: perception and expectations of neurologists, neurosurgeons and psychiatrists.
Article in The neuroradiology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Perceptions and practices of imaging personnel and physicians regarding the use of brain MRI for dementia diagnosis in Uganda.PloS one · 2025Article
- Multicompartmental cystic trigeminal schwannoma as an uncommon differential diagnosis of cerebellopontine angle tumors.Radiology case reports · 2024Article
- Utilization of an ultra-low-field, portable magnetic resonance imaging for brain tumor assessment in lower middle-income countries.Surgical neurology international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has rapidly become an essential diagnostic tool in modern medicine. Understanding the objectives, perception and expectations of the different medical specialties towards MRI is therefore important to improve the quality of the examinations. Our aim was to better comprehend the reasons and expectations of neurologists, neurosurgeons and psychiatrists when requesting brain MRI scans for their patients, and also to perceive the degree of confidence of these specialists in the images and respective reports. Sixty-three specialists were recruited from two tertiary hospitals and answered a tailored questionnaire. Neurosurgeons were more concerned with the images themselves; neurologists lacked confidence in both MRI images and reports, and one third of the psychiatrists only read the report and were the most confident of the specialties in MRI findings. These results possibly reflect the idiosyncrasies of each of these medical specialties. This knowledge, driven by efficient communication between neuroradiologists and neurosurgeons, neurologists and psychiatrists, may contribute to improve the quality of MRI examinations and consequently patient care and management of health resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.