ArticlePediatric radiology2023
Turnaround time and efficiency of pediatric outpatient brain magnetic resonance imaging: a multi-institutional cross-sectional study.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning improves image quality in motion-robust and sedation-free pediatric brain MRI.European radiology · 2026Article
- Clinical Validation of a Fast MRI Method to Evaluate Brain Vascular and Parenchymal Abnormalities in Sturge-Weber Syndrome.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Observational
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of sedation regimens for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging in Japan: a simulation-based study.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Performance of a multistate teleradiology service in emergency pediatric and adolescent neuroimaging: a two-year retrospective study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Optimizing MRI Scheduling in High-Complexity Hospitals: A Digital Twin and Reinforcement Learning Approach.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAside from single-center reports, few data exist across pediatric institutions that examine overall MRI turnaround time (TAT) and the determinants of variability.
objectiveTo determine average duration and determinants of a brain MRI examination at academic pediatric institutions and compare the duration to those used in practice expense relative value units (RVUs). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis multi-institutional cross-sectional investigation comprised four academic pediatric hospitals. We included children ages 0 to < 18 years who underwent an outpatient MRI of the brain without contrast agent in 2019. Our outcome of interest was the overall MRI TAT derived by time stamps. We estimated determinants of overall TAT using an adjusted log-transformed multivariable linear regression model with robust standard errors.
resultsThe average overall TAT significantly varied among the four hospitals. A sedated brain MRI ranged from 158 min to 224 min, a non-sedated MRI from 70 min to 112 min, and a limited MRI from 44 min to 70 min. The most significant predictor of a longer overall TAT was having a sedated MRI (coefficient = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.75; P < 0.001). The median MRI scan time for a non-sedated exam was 38 min and for a sedated exam, 37 min, approximately double the duration used by the Relative Value Scale (RVS) Update Committee (RUC).
conclusionWe found considerable differences in the overall TAT across four pediatric academic institutions. Overall, the significant predictors of turnaround times were hospital site and MRI pathway (non-sedated versus sedated versus limited MRI).
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.