ReviewJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Prerequisites for Clinical Implementation of Whole-Heart 4D-Flow MRI: A Delphi Analysis.
Review 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 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.
- Temporal Convolutional Neural Network Analysis of Magnetocardiography Signals for Detection of Pulmonary Hypertension.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The emerging role of 4D flow MRI in abdominal interventional radiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Automated identification, hemodynamic visualisation and quantification of abdominal aortic aneurysms with 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- 4D flow MRI-based grading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction: a validation study against echocardiography.European radiology · 2025Article
- Uncovering the impact of the cardiovascular system on cerebrovascular health using MRI.Experimental physiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole-heart 4D-flow MRI is a valuable tool for advanced visualization and quantification of blood flow in cardiovascular imaging. Despite advantages over 2D-phase-contrast flow, clinical implementation remains only partially exploited due to many hurdles in all steps, from image acquisition, reconstruction, postprocessing and analysis, clinical embedment, reporting, legislation, and regulation to data storage. The intent of this manuscript was 1) to evaluate the extent of clinical implementation of whole-heart 4D-flow MRI, 2) to identify hurdles hampering clinical implementation, and 3) to reach consensus on requirements for clinical implementation of whole-heart 4D-flow MRI. This study is based on Delphi analysis. This study involves a panel of 18 experts in the field on whole-heart 4D-flow MRI. The experience with and opinions of experts (mean 13 years of experience, interquartile range 6) in the field were aggregated. This study showed that among experts in the cardiovascular field, whole-heart 4D-flow MRI is currently used for both clinical and research purposes. Overall, the panelists agreed that major hurdles currently hamper implementation and utilization. The sequence-specific hurdles identified were long scan time and lack of standardization. Further hurdles included cumbersome and time-consuming segmentation and postprocessing. The study concludes that implementation of whole-heart 4D-flow MRI in clinical routine is feasible, but the implementation process is complex and requires a dedicated, multidisciplinary team. A predefined plan, including risk assessment and technique validation, is essential. The reported consensus statements may guide further tool development and facilitate broader implementation and clinical use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.
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.