Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36431182›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

More Space, Less Noise-New-generation Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems Can Improve Patient Comfort: A Prospective 0.55T-1.5T-Scanner Comparison.

Thilo Rusche, Jan Vosshenrich, David J Winkel, Ricardo Donners, Martin Segeroth, Michael Bach, Elmar M Merkle, Hanns-Christian Breit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Evaluating participant experiences and tolerability with MR Linac imaging.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Clinical MR imaging of patients with spinal hardware at 0.55T: comparison of diagnostic assessment and metal artifact appearance with 1.5T.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  10. Measuring biventricular function and left atrial volume in a single five-dimensional whole-heart cardiovascular magnetic resonance scan at 0.55T.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Feasibility of fetal cardiac function and anatomy assessment by real-time spiral balanced steady-state free precession magnetic resonance imaging at 0.55T.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Article
  14. Super-Field MRI Synthesis for Infant Brains Enhanced by Dual Channel Latent Diffusion.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Cardiac MRI at Low Field Strengths.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2024
    Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thilo RuscheDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8712-5759
Jan VosshenrichDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
David J WinkelDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7051-8022
Ricardo DonnersDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Martin SegerothDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Michael BachDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Elmar M MerkleDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Hanns-Christian BreitDepartment of Radiology, Clinic of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objectives of this study were to assess patient comfort when imaged on a newly introduced 0.55T low-field magnetic resonance (MR) scanner system with a wider bore opening compared to a conventional 1.5T MR scanner system. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this prospective study, fifty patients (mean age: 66.2 ± 17.0 years, 22 females, 28 males) underwent subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations with matched imaging protocols at 0.55T (MAGNETOM FreeMax, Siemens Healthineers; Erlangen, Germany) and 1.5T (MAGNETOM Avanto Fit, Siemens Healthineers; Erlangen, Germany) on the same day. MRI performed between 05/2021 and 07/2021 was included for analysis. The 0.55T MRI system had a bore opening of 80 cm, while the bore diameter of the 1.5T scanner system was 60 cm. Four patient groups were defined by imaged body regions: (1) cranial or cervical spine MRI using a head/neck coil (n = 27), (2) lumbar or thoracic spine MRI using only the in-table spine coils (n = 10), (3) hip MRI using a large flex coil (n = 8) and (4) upper- or lower-extremity MRI using small flex coils (n = 5). Following the MRI examinations, patients evaluated (1) sense of space, (2) noise level, (3) comfort, (4) coil comfort and (5) overall examination impression on a 5-point Likert-scale (range: 1= "much worse" to 5 = "much better") using a questionnaire. Maximum noise levels of all performed imaging studies were measured in decibels (dB) by a sound level meter placed in the bore center.

resultsSense of space was perceived to be "better" or "much better" by 84% of patients for imaging examinations performed on the 0.55T MRI scanner system (mean score: 4.34 ± 0.75). Additionally, 84% of patients rated noise levels as "better" or "much better" when imaged on the low-field scanner system (mean score: 3.90 ± 0.61). Overall sensation during the imaging examination at 0.55T was rated as "better" or "much better" by 78% of patients (mean score: 3.96 ± 0.70). Quantitative assessment showed significantly reduced maximum noise levels for all 0.55T MRI studies, regardless of body region compared to 1.5T, i.e., brain MRI (83.8 ± 3.6 dB vs. 89.3 ± 5.4 dB;

conclusionsPatients perceived 0.55T new-generation low-field MRI to be more comfortable than conventional 1.5T MRI, given its larger bore opening and reduced noise levels during image acquisition. Therefore, new concepts regarding bore design and noise level reduction of MR scanner systems may help to reduce patient anxiety and improve well-being when undergoing MR imaging.

Indexed as

low-field MRIMRIpatient comfortscanner-comparison

Identifiers

PMID36431182
PMCPMC9692643
OpenAlexW4309002005

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.