Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39676509›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025

Assessment of the available evidence for the use of 7-Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, with comparison to 3-T and 1.5-T MRI: A systematic scoping review.

Piotr Radojewski, Gian Franco Piredda, Gabriele Bonanno, Karl-Olof Lövblad, Maria Isabel Vargas, Reto Sutter, Daniel Nanz, Tanya Karrer, Georgia Salanti, Roland Wiest

Abstract readComparative StudyScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Piotr RadojewskiUniversity Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1062-8622
Gian Franco PireddaAdvanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthineers International AG, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gabriele BonannoUniversity Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Karl-Olof LövbladDivision of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
Maria Isabel VargasService de Radiologie, Clinique des Grangettes-Hirslanden et Faculté de Médecine de l'Université de Genève, Switzerland.
Reto SutterRadiology Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel NanzSwiss Center for Musculoskeletal Imaging, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tanya KarrerUniversity Library, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1200-7149
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Roland WiestUniversity Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltra-high-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at a field strength of 7 Tesla (T) has marked a significant milestone in diagnostic imaging since it was approved for clinical use in 2017. Despite the potential to improve image analysis by advances in signal-to-noise ratio, and improved spatial resolution and metabolic imaging, the clinical implementation of 7-T MRI remains limited. Factors that contribute to this limited availability are the high price, the operating costs, the need for specifically educated personnel, and lack of evidence of clinical benefit.

methodsThe aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the evidence of the clinical advantages of 7-T MRI versus MRI at lower field strengths, complementary imaging modalities, and diagnostic standard approaches for neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and Web of Science for this review.

resultsWe identified 1966 studies, of which 83 were included in our review. Most studies (73 studies, 88%) examined neurological indications, nine studies (11%) examined musculoskeletal indications, and one study reported on peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Of the neuroimaging indications, cerebrovascular diseases were the most frequently investigated (14 studies), followed by multiple sclerosis (13 studies) and epilepsy (11 studies).

conclusionThe available comparative evidence varied greatly across indications, with the best-documented evidence being for imaging of epilepsy. Risk of bias overall was high, with limitations in blinding information, study design reporting, and patient recruitment details. The identified evidence gaps underscore the need for comparative research to determine appropriate indications and to understand whether the potential diagnostic advantage of 7-T MRI translates to a tangible clinical benefit for patients. Future studies should include clinically relevant patient outcomes that go beyond radiological metrics.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMusculoskeletal DiseasesNervous System DiseasesHumansNeuroimaging7‐T MRIepilepsyevidenceMSneuroimagingUHF

Identifiers

PMID39676509
PMCPMC11647057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.