ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2022
Image quality and subject experience of quiet T1-weighted 7-T brain imaging using a silent gradient coil.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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.
- Feasibility of strong diffusion encoding and fast readout using a plug-and-play head gradient insert at 7 T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Software-Optimized Protocols for Acoustic Noise Reduction During Brain MRI at 7 Tesla.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAcoustic noise in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) negatively impacts patients. We assessed a silent gradient coil switched at 20 kHz combined with a T
methodsFive healthy subjects (21-29 years; three females) without previous 7-T MRI experience underwent both a quiet MPRAGE (Q-MPRAGE) and conventional MPRAGE (C-MPRAGE) sequence twice. Image quality was assessed quantitatively, and qualitatively by two neuroradiologists. Sound level was measured objectively and rated subjectively on a 0 to 10 scale by all subjects immediately following each sequence and after the whole examination (delayed). All subjects also reported comfort level, overall experience and willingness to undergo the sequence again.
resultsCompared to C-MPRAGE, Q-MPRAGE showed higher signal-to-noise ratio (10%; p = 0.012) and lower contrast-to-noise ratio (20%; p < 0.001) as well as acceptable to good image quality. Q-MPRAGE produced 27 dB lower sound level (76 versus 103 dB). Subjects reported lower sound level for Q-MPRAGE both immediate (4.4 ± 1.4 versus 6.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.007) and delayed (4.6 ± 1.4 versus 6.3 ± 1.3; p = 0.005), while they rated comfort level (7.4 ± 1.0 versus 6.1 ± 1.7; p = 0.016) and overall experience (7.6 ± 1.0 versus 6.0 ± 0.9; p = 0.005) higher. Willingness to undergo the sequence again was also higher, however not significantly (8.1 ± 1.0 versus 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.066).
conclusionQ-MPRAGE using a silent gradient coil reduced sound level by 27 dB compared to C-MPRAGE at 7 T while featuring acceptable-to-good image quality and a quieter and more pleasant subject experience.
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.