ArticleBioelectromagnetics2019
EMF exposure variation among MRI sequences from pediatric examination protocols.
Article in Bioelectromagnetics, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Compressed SENSE in Pediatric Brain Tumor MR Imaging : Assessment of Image Quality, Examination Time and Energy Release.Clinical neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Assessment of the Exposure to Gradient Magnetic Fields Generated by MRI Tomographs: Measurement Method, Verification of Limits and Clearance Areas through a Web-Based Platform.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Spectral density constraints on wireless communication.Heliyon · 2020Article
- Non-Ionizing Radiation in Swedish Health Care-Exposure and Safety Aspects.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exposure environment is unique due to the mixture and intensity of magnetic fields involved. Current safety regulations are based on well-known acute effects of heating and neuroexcitation while the scientific grounds for possible long-term effects from MRI exposure are lacking. Epidemiological research requires careful exposure characterization, and as a first step toward improved exposure assessment we set out to characterize the MRI-patient exposure environment. Seven MRI sequences were run on a 3-Tesla scanner while the radiofrequency and gradient magnetic fields were measured inside the scanner bore. The sequences were compared in terms of 14 different exposure parameters. To study within-sequence variability, we varied sequence settings such as flip angle and slice thickness one at a time, to determine if they had any impact on exposure endpoints. There were significant differences between two or more sequences for all fourteen exposure parameters. Within-sequence differences were up to 60% of the corresponding between-sequence differences, and a 5-8 fold exposure increase was caused by variations in flip angle, slice spacing, and field of view. MRI exposure is therefore not only sequence-specific but also patient- and examination occurrence-specific, a complexity that requires careful consideration for an MRI exposure assessment in epidemiological studies to be meaningful. Bioelectromagnetics. 40:3-15, 2019. © 2018 The Authors. Bioelectromagnetics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.