Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41419988›Full record

ReviewMagnetic resonance in medicine2026

Steps on the Path to Clinical Translation-A British and Irish Chapter ISMRM Workshop Survey of the UK MRI Community.

Julia E Markus, Penny L Hubbard Cristinacce, Shonit Punwani, James P B O'Connor, Rebecca Mills, Maria Yanez Lopez, Matthew Grech-Sollars, Fabrizio Fasano, John C Waterton, Michael J Thrippleton and 6 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

16 authors.

Julia E MarkusDivision of Medicine, Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Penny L Hubbard CristinacceDivision of Medicine, Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4213-3234
Shonit PunwaniDivision of Medicine, Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
James P B O'ConnorQuantitative Biomedical Imaging Laboratory, Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK.
Rebecca MillsUniversity of Oxford, Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Maria Yanez LopezMR Physics Group, Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5187-2501
Matthew Grech-SollarsDepartment of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3881-4870
Fabrizio FasanoSiemens Healthcare Ltd, Camberly, UK.
John C WatertonDivision of Informatics Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Centre for Imaging Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK.
Michael J ThrippletonEdinburgh Imaging/Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7858-9917
Matt G HallNational Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9530-5477
Susan T FrancisSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ben StattonMRC Laboratory of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5118-7977
Kevin MurphyCardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff, UK.
Po-Wah SoDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Harpreet HyareLysholm Department of Neuroradiology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our goal was to understand the barriers and challenges to clinical translation of quantitative MR (qMR) as perceived by stakeholders in the UK. We conducted an electronic survey on seven key areas related to clinical translation of qMR, developed at the BIC-ISMRM workshop: "Steps on the path to clinical translation". Based on the seven areas identified: (i) clinical workflow, (ii) changes in clinical practice, (iii) improving validation, (iv) standardization of data acquisition and analysis, (v) sharing of data and code, (vi) improving quality management, and (vii) end-user engagement, a 40-question survey was developed. Members of BIC-ISMRM, MR-PHYSICS, BSNR and institutional mailing lists were invited to respond to the online survey over a 5-week period between September and October 2022. The responses were analysed via descriptive statistics of multiple-choice questions, Likert scores and a thematic analysis of free text questions. A total of 69 responses were received from predominantly research imaging scientists (69%) in numerous centres across the UK. Three main themes were identified: (1) Consensus; the need to develop in terminology, decision making and validation; (2) Context Dependency; an appreciation of the uniqueness of each clinical situation, and (3) Product Profile; a clear description of the imaging biomarker and its intended use. Effective translation of qMR imaging and spectroscopic biomarkers to achieve their full clinical potential must address the differing needs and expectations of a wide range of stakeholders.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumansIrelandSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID41419988
PMCPMC12850563

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.