ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine: can we reach a consensus and have norms? A plea to colleagues in radiology India.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designAn analytical study. PURPOSE: To analyze the inadequacies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) films provided by diagnostic centers, leading to questionable and inconclusive diagnoses. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: No literature is currently available on this subject.
methodsLumbosacral MRI films of patients who visited the outpatient department between January 2023 and March 31, 2024, were evaluated to check for technical inadequacies.
resultsA total of 1,150 lumbar MRI sets from 100 MRI centers were examined. Thirty-five percent did not include T1 axial images, and 8% did not include T1 sagittal images. Thirty-eight percent did not specify the sagittal image sequencing (right-to-left or left-to-right). Eighty-five percent of the sagittal images were profiled from right to left, and 15% were profiled from left to right. Macnab's recommendation was not followed in 970 sets. The axial sectioning of the scout films was nonparallel to the examined segment in 350 sets. The sacroiliac joint was not screened in 40% of the sets. The number of plates provided ranged from two to six films.
conclusionsBased on the results obtained, we strongly recommend that radiologists form structured guidelines to be followed by MRI centers to ensure uniformity, address inadequacies, and minimize the chance of errors in diagnosis and subsequent treatment.
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.