ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022
A global survey of healthcare professionals undertaking MRI of patients with cochlear implants: a heterogeneity of practice and opinions.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Framework for Short-Range Wireless Power and Data Transfer in Miniaturized High-Power, High-Bandwidth Implants.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Cochlear implantation in adults with acquired single-sided deafness improves cortical processing and comprehension of speech presented to the non-implanted ears: a longitudinal EEG study.Brain communications · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo capture practice and opinions around the current clinical use of MRI in patients with cochlear implants (CIs), and to characterise patient progression from referral to image reporting.
methodsAn online survey recruited 237 healthcare professionals between 9 December 2019 and 9 September 2020. Descriptive statistics and informal thematic analyses were conducted.
resultsRespondents estimated that approximately 75% of CI users referred for an MRI proceeded to image acquisition, of which ~70% of cases comprised image acquisition on the head and the remaining cases on another area. They estimated that the proportion of these images that were usable was 93 and 99%, respectively. Confidence in most processes was high, with at least two-thirds of respondents reporting to be very or somewhat confident in obtaining consent and acquiring images. Conversely, fewer than half the respondents had the same confidence when splinting and bandaging the implant and troubleshooting any issues arising. Patient safety was rated of paramount importance, with patient comfort a clear second and image quality third.
conclusionThese findings highlight the need for consistent publication of clear, succinct, and standardised operating procedures for scanning patients with CIs and the requirement for regular training of radiographic and radiological healthcare professionals to address the heterogeneity of devices available. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: There is a need to improve the communication to radiography and radiology personnel regarding the nature of CIs, the heterogeneity of devices in existence, and the key differences between them. CI users risk being underserved by diagnostic medical imaging.
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.