ArticlePediatric radiology2024
Acoustic noise in a small-format 3.0-T neonatal MRI system.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundToday, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is rarely used in managing the care of premature neonates. This is in large part due to the medical and logistical challenges associated with moving neonates from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to the radiology department. Furthermore, acoustic noise associated with MR scanning poses safety concerns for both practitioners and neonatal patients. A small-format 3.0-T neonatal scanner was recently developed and placed within the NICU to address these logistical and acoustic challenges.
objectiveTo compare acoustic noise measurements of a small-format 3.0-T neonatal MRI scanner with conventional adult-sized 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI scanners using identical neonatal head imaging protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsSound pressure level (SPL) measurements of a standard imaging protocol were made in a small-format neonatal 3.0-T MRI scanner as well as in adult-sized 1.5-T and 3.0-T scanners. SPL measurements were made with a Brüel & Kjær sound level meter model 2250. The statistical significance of the differences in SPL between scanners was determined using one-way ANOVA.
resultsAverage sound pressure level values were measured in unweighted decibels (dB) and A-weighted decibels (dBA) for all imaging sequences in the protocol. The average A-weighted SPLs for the NICU from 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI scanners were 81.02 ± 0.28 dBA, 87.00 ± 0.85 dBA, and 94.91 ± 0.65 dBA, respectively. SPLs at the isocenter of the NICU MRI scanner were 5.98 dBA quieter than in the 1.5-T scanner (P=0.007), and 13.89 dBA quieter than in the 3.0-T scanner (P<0.001). For staff standing next to the scanner, the NICU scanner was 20.24 dBA quieter than the 1.5-T scanner (P<0.001) and 19.28 dBA quieter than the 3.0-T scanner (P<0.001).
conclusionThe NICU 3.0-T MRI system is significantly quieter than conventional adult-sized MRI systems, improving safety for neonatal patients. Significant reductions in SPL were also noted inside the screen room where clinicians may be present during scanning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39404888What 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.