Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38544326›Full record

SynthesisJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025

Patients' Experience to MRI Examinations-A Systematic Qualitative Review With Meta-Synthesis.

Isabel Nieto Alvarez, Janika Madl, Linda Becker, Oliver Amft

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Patient-centered modeling of the breast biopsy experience.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Isabel Nieto AlvarezChair of Digital Health, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1209-1264
Janika MadlSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6659-7167
Linda BeckerChair of Health Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Oliver AmftChair of Digital Health, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients often mention distress, anxiety, or claustrophobia related to MRI, resulting in no-shows, disturbances of the workflow, and lasting psychological effects. Patients' experience varies and is moderated by socio-demographic aspects alongside the clinical condition. While qualitative studies help understand individuals' experiences, to date a systematic review and aggregation of MRI individuals' experience is lacking. PURPOSE: To investigate how adult patients experience MRI, and the characterizing factors. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review with meta-aggregation and meta-synthesis. POPULATION: 220 patients' reported experience of adults undergoing clinical MRI and 144 quotes from eight qualitative studies. ASSESSMENT: Systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. For quality appraisal, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools were used. Convergent segregated approach was undertaken. DATA ANALYSIS: Participant recruitment, setting of exploration, type of interview, and analysis extracted through Joana Briggs Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI QARI) tool. Meta-synthesis was supported by a concept map. For meta-aggregation, direct patient quotes were extracted, findings grouped, themes and characterizing factors at each stage abstracted, and categories coded in two cycles. Frequency of statements was quantified. Interviews' raw data unavailability impeded computer-aided analysis.

resultsEight articles out of 12,755 initial studies, 220 patients, were included. Meta-aggregation of 144 patient quotes answered: (1) experiences before, at the scanning table, during, and after an MRI, (2) differences based on clinical condition, and (3) characterizing factors, including coping strategies, look-and-feel of medical technology, interaction with professionals, and information. Seven publications lack participants' health literacy level, occupation, and eight studies lack developmental conditions, ethnicity, or country of origin. Six studies were conducted in university hospitals. DATA

conclusionAggregation of patients' quotes provide a foundational description of adult patients' MRI experience across the stages of an MRI process. Insufficient raw data of individual quotes and limited socio-demographic diversity may constrain the understanding of individual experience and characterizing factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAnxietyHumansQualitative Researchanxietyinformationmagnetic resonance imagingpatient‐centered carepatient experience

Identifiers

PMID38544326
PMCPMC11645497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.