ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessment of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Portable Bedside Low-Field MRI for Assessment of Ventricular Size.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Feasibility and Usability of Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pediatric Neuroimaging in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Study.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, there has been an increasing effort to take advantage of the potential use of low magnetic induction devices with less than 1 T, referred to as Low-Field MRI (LF MRI). LF MRI systems were used, especially in the early days of magnetic resonance technology. Over time, magnetic induction values of 1.5 and 3 T have become the standard for clinical devices, mainly because LF MRI systems were suffering from significantly lower quality of the images, e.g., signal-noise ratio. In recent years, due to advances in image processing with artificial intelligence, there has been an increasing effort to take advantage of the potential use of LF MRI with induction of less than 1 T. This overview article focuses on the analysis of the evidence concerning the diagnostic efficacy of modern LF MRI systems and the clinical comparison of LF MRI with 1.5 T systems in imaging the nervous system, musculoskeletal system, and organs of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. METHODOLOGY: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for the period 2018-2023 was performed according to the recommended PRISMA protocol. Data were analysed to identify studies comparing the accuracy, reliability and diagnostic performance of LF MRI technology compared to available 1.5 T MRI.
resultsA total of 1275 publications were retrieved from the selected databases. Only two articles meeting all predefined inclusion criteria were selected for detailed assessment.
conclusionsA limited number of robust studies on the accuracy and diagnostic performance of LF MRI compared with 1.5 T MRI was available. The current evidence is not sufficient to draw any definitive insights. More scientific research is needed to make informed conclusions regarding the effectiveness of LF MRI technology.
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.