ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Impact of patient comfort on diagnostic image quality during PET/MR exam: A quantitative survey study for clinical workflow management.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Native myocardial T1 mapping using rapid 1.5T T1FLASH and T1 MOLLI during breath-hold and free-breathing.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance angiography-based assessment of the renal artery and its branching pattern.Anatomical science international · 2026Article
- Beyond image quality: Patient experience with long-axial field-of-view and standard PET/CT systems.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- The added value ofAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Magnetic Resonance Image Quality Assessment by Using Non-Maximum Suppression and Entropy Analysis.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPET/MR is transferring from a powerful scientific research tool to an imaging modality in clinical routine practice. Whole body PET/MR screening usually takes 30-50 minutes to finish, during which a few factors might induce patient discomfort and further cause degraded image quality. The aim of this report is to investigate the patients' perception of the imaging procedure and its correlation with image quality.
methodsOne hundred and twenty patients (63 males and 57 females, average age = 51.3 years, range 22-70 years) who had been diagnosed with cancer or had previous history of cancer were recruited and scanned with a simultaneous PET/MR system. A questionnaire was given to all patients retrospectively after the PET/MR scan, which has nine questions to assess patients' feeling of the scan on a Likert scale scoring system (1-5, 1 as most satisfied). All PET/MR images were also visually examined by two experts independently to evaluate the quality of the images. Six body locations were assessed and each location was evaluated also with a Likert scale scoring system (1-5, 5 as the best quality). Mann-Whitney U-test was used for statistical analysis to check if there is significant correlation between image quality and patient perceptions.
resultsWith a total of 120 patients, 118 questionnaires were filled and returned for analysis. The patients' characteristics were summarized in Table 4. The statistics of the patients' perception in the questionnaire were illustrated in Tables 5-7. Statistical significant correlations were found between MR image quality and patients' characteristics/perception.
conclusionOur results show that PET/MR scanning is generally safe and comfortable for most of the patients. Statistical analysis does not support the hypothesis that bad patient's perception leads to degraded image quality.
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.