ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2016
Subjective perception of safety in healthy individuals working with 7 T MRI scanners: a retrospective multicenter survey.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety for Human MR Scanners at 7T.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Article
- Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: an update on regulation, exposure assessment techniques, health risk evaluation, and surveillance.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Review
- Long-term behavioral effects observed in mice chronically exposed to static ultra-high magnetic fields.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2021Article
- Absence of DNA double-strand breaks in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells after 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging assessed by γH2AX flow cytometry.European radiology · 2018Article
- Evaluation of exposure to (ultra) high static magnetic fields during activities around human MRI scanners.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2017Article
- From ultrahigh to extreme field magnetic resonance: where physics, biology and medicine meet.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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo retrospectively assess perception of safety of healthy individuals working with human 7 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 66 healthy individuals with a mean age of 31 ± 7 years participated in this retrospective multicentre survey study. Nonparametric correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the relation between self-reported perception of safety and prevalence of sensory effects while working with 7 T MRI scanners for an average 47 months.
resultsThe results indicated that 98.5 % of the study participants had a neutral or positive feeling about safety aspects at 7 T MRI scanners. 45.5 % reported that they feel very safe and none of the participants stated that they feel moderately or very unsafe while working with 7 T MRI scanners. Perception of safety was not affected by the number of hours per week spent in the vicinity of the 7 T MRI scanner or the duration of experience with 7 T MRI. More than 50 % of individuals experienced vertigo and metallic taste while working with 7 T MRI scanners. However, participants' perceptions of safety were not affected by the prevalence of MR-related symptoms.
conclusionsThe overall data indicated an average perception of a moderately safe work environment. To our knowledge, this study delineates the first attempt to assess the subjective safety perception among 7 T MRI workers and suggests further investigations are indicated.
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.