ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
An open-source repository-based tool for quality control of imaging protocol compliance: demonstration in a multicentre MRI study.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A knowledge-guided dual-path framework for automated liver MRI series classification.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Precision medicine in myeloma demands precision imaging: is whole body MRI the solution?Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesClinical translation of advanced MRI techniques can be hindered by the challenges of performing standardized multicentre imaging trials. This work aims to develop and demonstrate an automated tool for monitoring imaging protocol deviations, enabling corrective action to be taken.
methodsA Python-based tool, integrated into the imaging repository XNAT, was developed to compare DICOM series with an agreed imaging protocol, highlighting missing series and parameter deviations. This was demonstrated through retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired dataset from a ten-site whole-body (WB) MRI study of patients with multiple myeloma. The acquired data were compared to the relevant radiological guidelines and to the site-specific imaging protocols agreed for the study.
resultsThe rate of technical software failure was 0% across 174 examinations from 10 sites. The clinical guidelines were followed in 87.9% of examinations and compliance with the site-specific imaging protocol was greater than 75.0% for all parameters. Common deviations included number of averages for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and repetition time for DWI and Dixon: 85.2%, 81.7%, and 75.1%, respectively. There was a statistically significant correlation between protocol compliance and overall exam radiological image quality.
conclusionsRepository-integrated software is presented for automated monitoring of imaging protocol compliance to support standardization in multicentre studies and clinical translation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study presents a novel open-source repository-integrated software tool for automatically monitoring compliance with the expected imaging protocol. Standardized acquisition protocols are crucial in multicentre imaging studies and this tool has the potential to enhance research outcomes and support clinical translation.
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.