ArticleSkeletal radiology2020
Society of skeletal radiology member utilization and performance of whole-body MRI in adults.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Imaging in Multiple Myeloma: New Frontiers for MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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
objectivesTo evaluate musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologist whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) practice patterns in an effort to better understand current MSK clinical utilization and the need for standardized coding.
methodsA 12-question survey was created in Survey Monkey®. The survey was e-mailed to Society of Skeletal Radiology (SSR) members on September 19, 2018. The survey included questions on SSR member demographics and on their experience with WBMRI.
resultsOne hundred sixty-four of 1454 (11%) SSR members responded to the survey. A minority (32%; n = 52/164) of respondents reported that their institutions routinely perform WBMRI. The most common indication was multiple myeloma (78%, n = 51/65). The most commonly utilized sequences were coronal short tau inversion recovery (STIR) (79%, n = 52/66) and coronal T1 without fat saturation (73%, n = 48/66). A large proportion of respondents (48%, n = 31/64) did not know the code used for billing WBMRI at their institutions. Of the remaining respondents, 23% (n = 15/64) reported use of the bone marrow MRI code, 16% (n = 10/64) the chest/abdomen/pelvis combination code, and 9% (n = 6/64) the unlisted MRI procedure code.
conclusionThere is variation in who is responsible for the protocol and interpretation of WBMRI, as well as how the exam is performed and how the exam is coded, which raise barriers to broad implementation. Recent WBMRI guidelines for multiple myeloma and prostate cancer can mitigate many of these barriers, but they do not address the coding and reimbursement challenges. Collaborative multi-society development of a new CPT® code for WBMRI may be a worthwhile endeavor.
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.