Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32876831›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2021

Patient preferences for development in MRI scanner design: a survey of claustrophobic patients in a randomized study.

Elisa Iwan, Jinhua Yang, Judith Enders, Adriane Elisabeth Napp, Matthias Rief, Marc Dewey

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Breast MRI: Kaiser score agreement with and without diffusion].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Leveraging ultra-high field (7T) MRI in psychiatric research.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elisa IwanDepartement of Anaesthesiology, Charité Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Jinhua YangDepartment of Radiology, Charité Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Judith EndersDepartment of Radiology, Charité Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Adriane Elisabeth NappDepartment of Radiology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum Klinik für Pädiatrie m.S. Onkologie und Hämatologie, Charité Berlin, Mittelallee 8, 4. OG Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias RiefDepartment of Radiology, Charité Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Marc DeweyDepartment of Radiology, Charité Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. marc.dewey@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4402-2733
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEPeng Cheng Laboratory · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient PreferencePhobic DisordersHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesClaustrophobiaMagnetic resonance imagingQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID32876831
PMCPMC7880963
OpenAlexW3081574203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.