ArticleScientific reports2024
What factors affect a patient's subjective perception of MRI examination.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of supine and prone positions for dental MRI with a microscopy coil: image quality and patient burden in healthy volunteers.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- MRI-Related Claustrophobia: Patient-Reported Experience and Associated Factors in a Makkah Region Cohort.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Empathetic radiologic approaches in the era of AI: how can we improve the journey of patients with endometriosis?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Combining Fluorescence and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Drug Discovery-A Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Psychometric Properties of the Greek Version of the Claustrophobia Questionnaire.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MRI is becoming increasingly available and more common. However, it is a long examination, within a limited space, and making strong demands on the patient for proper co-operation. Using survey data collected by prospective questionnaire, this work examines the influence of patient preparation and type of MRI device on patients' subjective perception of the examination. The work analysed 800 patient questionnaires from 7 radiology centres, 12 MRI machines from 3 manufacturers. It was shown that 20% of patients were not informed at all or only insufficiently about the MRI examination by the referring physician, and this had a statistically significant effect on subjective perception as to the length of the examination. In claustrophobic patients, there was no significant difference in the perception of MRI examination between machine types (open vs. closed) or between bore size. This work demonstrated the influence of technical parameters of MRI devices on some other evaluated aspects in terms of patients' perception of MRI examinations (such as noise perception or peripheral nerves irritation) and that the preparation prior to the examination itself plays also an important role. Sufficient explanation from the referring physician, good workplace time management, and sufficient communication with the patient influence the subjective perception of the examination and thus indirectly its diagnostic benefit.
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.