Trial reportEuropean radiology2021
Patient preferences for development in MRI scanner design: a survey of claustrophobic patients in a randomized study.
Trial report in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of person-centred adjustments to facilitate magnetic resonance imaging for autistic patients without the use of sedation or anaesthesia.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2022Pooled it
- Patient and Family Perspectives on Point-of-Care Low-Field Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Children in the Emergency Department, Intensive Care Unit, and Hospital Setting.Pediatric neurology · 2026Article
- MRI for patients with autism: evaluating radiologic technologists' awareness and practice in Saudi healthcare settings.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- [Breast MRI: Kaiser score agreement with and without diffusion].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Observational
- MRI-Related Claustrophobia: Patient-Reported Experience and Associated Factors in a Makkah Region Cohort.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Patient experience and acceptance of a lightweight, compact 3 Tesla MRI system.Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2026Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Greek Version of the Claustrophobia Questionnaire.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Leveraging ultra-high field (7T) MRI in psychiatric research.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Non-operating Room Anesthesia (NORA): A Comprehensive Review of Monitored Anesthesia Care.Cureus · 2024Review
- Applications, limitations and advancements of ultra-low-field magnetic resonance imaging: A scoping review.Surgical neurology international · 2024Article
- Toward Autism-Friendly Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Exploring Autistic Individuals' Experiences of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans in the United Kingdom, a Cross-Sectional Survey.Autism in adulthood · 2023Article
- Visual and quantitative assessment of hip implant-related metal artifacts at low field MRI: a phantom study comparing a 0.55-T system with 1.5-T and 3-T systems.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Randomized controlled trial on the effects of mindfulness-based respiratory decompression therapy in claustrophobic patients undergoing MRI inspection.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- More Space, Less Noise-New-generation Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems Can Improve Patient Comfort: A Prospective 0.55T-1.5T-Scanner Comparison.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Health preference research: An overview for medical radiation sciences.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Visualizing patterns of intervertebral disc damage with dual-energy computed tomography: assessment of diagnostic accuracy in an ex vivo spine biophantom.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2022Article
- [New clinical applications for low-field magnetic resonance imaging : Technical and physical aspects].Der Radiologe · 2022Review
- [Economic aspects of low-field magnetic resonance imaging : Acquisition, installation, and maintenance costs of 0.55 T systems].Der Radiologe · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner designs claustrophobic patients prefer. MATERIAL/
methodsWe analyzed questionnaires completed by 160 patients at high risk for claustrophobia directly after a scan in either a short-bore or open panoramic scanner as part of a prospective randomized trial Enders et al (BMC Med Imaging 11:4, 2011). Scanner preferences were judged based on schematic drawings of four scanners. Information on the diagnostic performance of the depicted scanners was provided, too.
resultsA majority of patients suggested upright open (59/160, 36.9%) and open panoramic (53/160, 33.1%) before short-bore designs (26/160, 16.3%, for all p < 0.001) for future development. When asked about patients' preferred scanner choice for an upcoming examination, information about a better diagnostic performance of a short-bore scanner significantly improved its preference rates (from 6/160 to 49/160 or 3.8 to 30.5%, p < 0.001). Patients with a claustrophobic event preferred open designs significantly more often than patients without a claustrophobic event (p = 0.047). Patients scanned in a short-bore scanner in our trial preferred this design significantly more often (p = 0.003). Noise reduction (51/160, 31.9%), more space over the head (44/160, 27.5%), and overall more space (33/160, 20.6%) were the commonest suggested areas of improvement.
conclusionPatients at high risk for claustrophobia visually prefer open- over short-bore MRI designs for further development. Education about a better diagnostic performance of a visually less-attractive scanner can increase its acceptance. Noise and space were of most concern for claustrophobic patients. This information can guide individual referral of claustrophobic patients to scanners and future scanner development. KEY POINTS: • Patients at high risk for claustrophobia visually favor the further development of open scanners as opposed to short- and closed-bore scanner designs. • Educating claustrophobic patients about a higher diagnostic performance of a short-bore scanner can significantly increase their acceptance of this otherwise visually less-attractive design. • A medical history of earlier claustrophobic events in a given MRI scanner type and focusing on the features "more space" and "noise reduction" can help to guide referral of patients who are at high risk for claustrophobia.
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.