Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29051964›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2018

Identification of quality improvement areas in pediatric MRI from analysis of patient safety reports.

Camilo Jaimes, Diana J Murcia, Karen Miguel, Cathryn DeFuria, Pallavi Sagar, Michael S Gee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. MRI safety-developing the right culture.Pediatric radiology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Influence of Patient-Centered Communication on Children's Anxiety and Use of Anesthesia for MR.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Camilo JaimesDivision of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7169-4244
Diana J MurciaDivision of Abdominal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Karen MiguelQuality and Safety Office, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Cathryn DeFuriaQuality and Safety Office, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Pallavi SagarDivision of Pediatric Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., Ellison 237, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Michael S GeeDivision of Pediatric Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., Ellison 237, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. msgee@mgh.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnalysis of safety reports has been utilized to guide practice improvement efforts in adult magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Data specific to pediatric MRI could help target areas of improvement in this population.

objectiveTo estimate the incidence of safety reports in pediatric MRI and to determine associated risk factors. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn a retrospective HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study, a single-institution Radiology Information System was queried to identify MRI studies performed in pediatric patients (0-18 years old) from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2015. The safety report database was queried for events matching the same demographic and dates. Data on patient age, gender, location (inpatient, outpatient, emergency room [ER]), and the use of sedation/general anesthesia were recorded. Safety reports were grouped into categories based on the cause and their severity. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize continuous variables. Chi-square analyses were performed for univariate determination of statistical significance of variables associated with safety report rates. A multivariate logistic regression was used to control for possible confounding effects.

resultsA total of 16,749 pediatric MRI studies and 88 safety reports were analyzed, yielding a rate of 0.52%. There were significant differences in the rate of safety reports between patients younger than 6 years (0.89%) and those older (0.41%) (P<0.01), sedated (0.8%) and awake children (0.45%) (P<0.01), and inpatients (1.1%) and outpatients (0.4%) (P<0.01). The use of sedation/general anesthesia is an independent risk factor for a safety report (P=0.02). The most common causes for safety reports were service coordination (34%), drug reactions (19%), and diagnostic test and ordering errors (11%).

conclusionThe overall rate of safety reports in pediatric MRI is 0.52%. Interventions should focus on vulnerable populations, such as younger patients, those requiring sedation, and those in need of acute medical attention.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyQuality ImprovementAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsChildrenMagnetic resonance imagingQuality improvementSafetySafety report

Identifiers

PMID29051964
OpenAlexW2766304459

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.