ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
MRI evaluation of the lumbar spine: a survey-based assessment of protocols and practice patterns used by musculoskeletal radiologists in the United States.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. 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
objectiveGiven the lack of consensus in lumbar spine MRI protocols, this study sought to characterize current practice patterns among musculoskeletal radiologists in the United States. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn anonymous 13-item web-based survey covering protocol sharing, sequence selection, and advanced techniques was distributed to members of the Society of Skeletal Radiology and the Society of Academic Bone Radiologists from 12/2022 to 2/2023. Frequency counts and proportions were calculated from the collected responses.
resultsOne hundred ninety-three musculoskeletal radiologists completed the survey; 171/193 (88.6%) actively interpret lumbar spine MRI, and 137/193 (71%) reported using a shared protocol with neuroradiologists. The most common protocol combines sagittal T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences (150/193 (77.7%)). For axial imaging, respondents use a T1- and T2-weighted pair (102/193, 54.5%) or T2-weighted imaging alone (64/193, 34.2%). Fat suppression is applied to postcontrast T1-weighted images more frequently in the sagittal plane (149/193 (77.2%)) than axially (102/193 (52.8%)), with use dictated by indication or subspecialty preference (less frequent in neuroradiologists' protocols). Specialized sequences are uncommon (3D imaging (19/193, 9.8%), diffusion-weighted imaging (4/193, 2.1%), chemical-shift imaging (17/193, 9.7%)) and are typically reserved for specific indications.
conclusionPractices in the United States converge on a core lumbar spine MRI protocol-sagittal T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and STIR sequences with axial T2-weighted imaging-yet diverge in optional elements. Musculoskeletal radiologists use fat-suppressed imaging more than neuroradiologists, while specialized techniques are deployed selectively. Recognizing these variations could potentially enhance interpretive consistency, standardize protocols for research, and support rapid protocol development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41123601What 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.