Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40126781›Full record

ReviewMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025

Multi-center QA of ultrahigh-field systems.

Oliver Kraff, Markus W May

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Reproducibility and quality assurance in MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025
    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

2 authors.

Oliver KraffErwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, University of Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, 45141, Essen, Germany. oliver.kraff@web.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6006-8934
Markus W MayErwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, University of Duisburg-Essen, Kokereiallee 7, 45141, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, ultra-high field (UHF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has evolved from pure investigational devices to now systems with CE and FDA clearance for clinical use. UHF MRI offers enhanced diagnostic value, especially in brain and musculoskeletal imaging, aiding in the differential diagnosis of conditions like multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. However, to fully harness the potential of UHF, multi-center studies and quality assurance (QA) protocols are critical for ensuring reproducibility across different systems and sites. This becomes even more vital as the UHF community comprises three generations of magnet design, and many UHF sites are currently upgrading to the latest system architecture. Hence, this review presents multi-center QA measurements that have been performed at UHF, in particular from larger consortia through their "travelling heads" studies. Despite the technical variability between different vendors and system generations, these studies have shown a high level of reproducibility in structural and quantitative imaging. Furthermore, the review highlights the ongoing challenges in QA, such as transmitter performance drift and the need for a standard reliable multi-tissue phantom for RF coil calibration, which are crucial for advancing UHF MRI in both clinical and research applications.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingBrainCalibrationEquipment DesignHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMulticenter Studies as TopicMultiple SclerosisPhantoms, ImagingQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ControlReproducibility of Results7 Tesla (7 T)Multi-centerQuality assurance (QA)Ultra-high field (UHF) MRI

Identifiers

PMID40126781
PMCPMC12255555

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.