ArticleThe British journal of radiology2015
Evaluation of 39 medical implants at 7.0 T.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- SAR validation of RF coils and implants in a B0-free RF safety laboratory.Medical physics · 2026Article
- On the RF safety of titanium mesh head implants in 7 T MRI systems: an investigation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical implementation of MRI for evaluation of titanium press-fit osseointegration implants.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Article
- The use of 7T MRI in multiple sclerosis: review and consensus statement from the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Cooperative.Brain communications · 2024Review
- Flexible Titanium Intramedullary Nail Displacement After Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
- Safety and function of programmable ventriculo-peritoneal shunt valves: An in vitro 7 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Perivascular Space Imaging at Ultrahigh Field MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America · 2021Review
- 7T MR Safety.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2021Article
- Review
- [Metallic Artifacts on MR Imaging and Methods for Their Reduction].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2020Review
- Neuroimaging Technological Advancements for Targeting in Functional Neurosurgery.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2019Review
- Hippocampal subfield-specific connectivity findings in major depressive disorder: A 7 Tesla diffusion MRI study.Journal of psychiatric research · 2019Article
- 7-Tesla MRI of the brain in a research subject with bilateral, total knee replacement implants: Case report and proposed safety guidelines.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2019Article
- Clinical 7 T MRI: Are we there yet? A review about magnetic resonance imaging at ultra-high field.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Spinal cord MRI at 7T.NeuroImage · 2018Review
- Cranial fixation plates in cerebral magnetic resonance imaging: a 3 and 7 Tesla in vivo image quality study.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWith increased signal to noise ratios, 7.0-T MRI has the potential to contribute unique information regarding anatomy and pathophysiology of a disease. However, concerns for the safety of subjects with metallic medical implants have hindered advancement in this field. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the MRI safety for 39 commonly used medical implants at 7.0 T.
methodsSelected metallic implants were tested for magnetic field interactions, radiofrequency-induced heating and artefacts using standardized testing techniques.
results5 of the 39 implants tested may be unsafe for subjects undergoing MRI at 7.0 T.
conclusionImplants were deemed either "MR Conditional" or "MR Unsafe" for the 7.0-T MRI environment. Further research is needed to expand the existing database categorizing implants that are acceptable for patients referred for MRI examinations at 7.0 T. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Lack of MRI testing for common metallic medical implants limits the translational potential of 7.0-T MRI. For safety reasons, patients with metallic implants are not allowed to undergo a 7.0-T MRI scan, precluding part of the population that can benefit from the detailed resolution of ultra-high-field MRIs. This investigation provides necessary MRI testing of common medical implants at 7.0 T.
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.