ArticleRadiography (London, England : 1995)2026
Patient experience and acceptance of a lightweight, compact 3 Tesla MRI system.
Article in Radiography (London, England : 1995), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of transducer position on BMedical physics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEvaluating patient comfort and acceptance is essential when introducing new imaging technologies. The compact 3T (C3T) MRI system features a unique ergonomic design compared to conventional 60-cm bore whole-body 3T MRI systems (WB3T). This study focuses on comparing the patient experience for brain exams between the C3T and WB3T systems.
methodsFifty adult patients undergoing clinically indicated brain MRI exams were imaged using both the C3T and WB3T systems. After completing both scans, participants completed a 12-item questionnaire assessing various aspects of their MRI experience using a 5-point Likert scale. Key areas of evaluation included comfort, noise, vibration, and overall preference.
resultsSurvey responses showed that patients reported a more favorable experience with the C3T scanner in several categories, particularly regarding the exam room environment, noise levels, perceived vibrations, and preference for future scans. Both systems were rated as "very desirable" overall, indicating high levels of patient acceptance for each platform.
conclusionThe compact 3T MRI system offers a patient experience that is comparable to or better than conventional whole-body MRI systems for brain exams. These findings support the integration of the C3T system into clinical practice, especially in environments prioritizing patient comfort and satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: By understanding the patient experience on the C3T, it will help to inform future designs and benefits for MRI systems. This study shows that patients find the C3T system comparable or superior to conventional whole-body 3T scanners in comfort, noise, and overall preference. These results suggest the C3T may support improved patient compliance, reduced motion, and greater efficiency in clinical workflows. Findings may also guide MRI manufacturers toward ergonomic, patient-centered innovations in both research and practice.
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.