ReviewDer Radiologe2019
[Safety of implants in high field and ultrahigh field MRI].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt can be expected that the number of 7 T MRI systems for clinical use will increase in the future. On the other hand, almost no medical implant has been labeled MR conditional for 7 T, so far, leaving the question of implant safety unanswered to the MR operator.
methodsIn principle, the same interactions between magnetizable and electric conductive material apply at 7 T as known at lower magnetic field strengths. However, there are a few important differences that need to be taken into account to perform a profound risk-benefit analysis. After a more general introduction of technical differences between 3 and 7 T systems, the article will focus mainly on safety assessments with regard to interactions between implant and radiofrequency (RF) transmit fields. In addition, strategies to ensure access at 7 T will be discussed. RESULTS OF PRACTICAL RELEVANCE: Besides hazards due to the magnetic force which can be up to 2.3 times stronger at 7 T compared to 3 T, increased risks of RF-induced tissue heating are the most critical aspects. The resonant-length of an implant at 7 T is about 5 cm. Other than at 3 T, MR systems at 7 T are less standardized. Especially with regard to the RF transmit coil and transmission methods used, substantial differences need to be expected. Hence, it is important to critically question published safety assessments of implants and to have a thorough discussion about how this relates to the individual exposure scenario. For nonmagnetic implants without a dedicated 7 T safety evaluation, but which are 3 T MR conditional and have a certain minimum distance to the RF transmit coil, a consensus recommendation from the national network German Ultrahigh Field Imaging (GUFI) may be helpful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31172246What 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.