Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38112762›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2024

A survey of non-sedate practices when acquiring pediatric magnetic resonance imaging examinations.

Mary-Louise C Greer, Michael S Gee, Erika Pace, Susan Sotardi, Cara E Morin, Govind B Chavhan, Camilo Jaimes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance recommendations toward environmentally sustainable cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

7 authors.

Mary-Louise C GreerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada. mary-louise.greer@sickkids.ca.
Michael S GeeDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Erika PaceDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, UK.
Susan SotardiDepartment of Radiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Cara E MorinDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Govind B ChavhanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada.
Camilo JaimesDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving access to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in childhood can be facilitated by making it faster and cheaper and reducing need for sedation or general anesthesia (GA) to mitigate motion. Some children achieve diagnostic quality MRI without GA through the use of non- practices fostering their cooperation and/or alleviating anxiety. Employed before and during MRI, these variably educate, distract, and/or desensitize patients to this environment.

objectiveTo assess current utilization of non-sedate practices in pediatric MRI, including variations in practice and outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsA survey-based study was conducted with 1372 surveys emailed to the Society for Pediatric Radiology members in February 2021, inviting one response per institution.

resultsResponses from 50 unique institutions in nine countries revealed 49/50 (98%) sites used ≥ 1 non-sedate practice, 48/50 (96%) sites in infants < 6 months, and 11/50 (22%) for children aged 6 months to 3 years. Non-sedate practices per site averaged 4.5 (range 0-10), feed and swaddle used at 47/49 (96%) sites, and child life specialists at 35/49 (71%). Average success rates were moderate (> 50-75%) across all sites and high (> 75-100%) for 20% of sites, varying with specific techniques. Commonest barriers to use were scheduling conflicts and limited knowledge.

conclusionNon-sedate practice utilization in pediatric MRI was near-universal but widely variable across sites, ages, and locales, with room for broader adoption. Although on average non-sedate practice success rates were similar, the range in use and outcomes suggest a need for standardized implementation guidelines, including patient selection and outcome metrics, to optimize utilization and inform educational initiatives.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralMagnetic Resonance ImagingChildHumansInfantMotionPhysical ExaminationSurveys and QuestionnairesChildEducationGeneral anesthesiaMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID38112762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.