ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2023
Evaluation of a compact 3 T MRI scanner for patients with implanted devices.
Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2023. 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.
- Review
- [Spherical measurement-based analysis of gradient nonlinearity in magnetic resonance imaging].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Access to high-quality MR exams is severely limited for patients with some implanted devices due to labeled MR safety conditions, but small-bore systems can overcome this limitation. For example, a compact 3 T MR scanner (C3T) with high-performance gradients can acquire exams of the head, extremities, and infants. Because of its reduced bore size and the patient being advanced only partially into the bore, the associated electromagnetic (EM) fields drop off rapidly caudal to the head, compared to whole-body systems. Therefore, some patients with MR conditional implanted devices can safely receive 3 T brain exams on the C3T using its strong gradients and a multiple-channel receive coil, while a corresponding exam on whole-body MR is precluded. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of a small-bore scanner for subjects with MR conditional spinal or sacral nerve stimulators, or abandoned cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) leads. The spatial dependence of specific absorption rate (SAR) on the C3T was compared to whole-body scanners. A device assessment tool was developed and applied to evaluate MR safety individually on the C3T for 12 subjects with implanted devices or abandoned CIED leads. Once MR safety was established, the subjects received a C3T brain exam along with their clinical, 1.5 T exam. The resulting images were graded by three board-certified neuroradiologists. The C3T exams were well-tolerated with no adverse events, and significantly outperformed the whole-body 1.5 T exams in terms of overall image quality.
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.