ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Validation and benchmarking of Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM) tool for the safety of patients undergoing MRI investigations.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMRI uses a magnetic field that can harm patients with metallic implants and eliciting details about implants while entering MRI room is essential. Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM) tool takes feedback from patients and checks whether staff have enquired about safety parameters while undergoing the diagnostic test, thereby safeguarding the patients against any potential hazards. Objective of study to develop a context-specific PREM tool for MRI safety through constructive feedback from patients METHODOLOGY: Phase 1 expert group was formed and focused group discussions (FGDs) conducted to develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and the PREM Questionnaire tool. Phase 2 and phase 3, multiphasic study conducted in 15 hospitals, India with good geographical distribution using purposive sampling. Phase 2 consisted of a pilot study using the PREM tool with a sample size of 213 participants, and phase 3 consisted of a field study with 720 participants.
resultsPREM tool developed with 21 questions based on SOP, findings of FGDs and patient feedback. The internal consistency of the PREM tool was excellent and indicated high reliability and showed that the expert group considered the questions essential. Concerning removing metallic devices before the scan, 100% of participants said yes in the pilot study and 99% in the main study. Lacunae identified in the study included screening using a metal detector, counselling about history of allergy, side effects of contrast agents and claustrophobia, and methods to contact the staff in case of any emergency during the MRI scan. These findings indicate that there is a need to improve safety practices based on feedback from patients using the MRI Safety PREM tool.
conclusionsMRI Safety PREM tool was developed and validated as a zero-cost patient safety tool. Study participants accepted the PREM questionnaire as a vital tool for patients undergoing MRI to ensure patient safety and improved quality of care.
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.