ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Concordance Between MR Safety Guidance Documents on Conditions for a Safe MR Environment.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 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.
- Editorial for "Concordance Between MR Safety Guidance Documents on Conditions for a Safe MR Environment".Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnvironmental conditions established at facility design, construction, updates, and/or procurement of specialized equipment are the foundation of safe MR practice. Establishing an institutional MR safety program must take into consideration the conditions of the MR environment, and staff training should be tailored to its features. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To identify the concordance on conditions for a safe MR environment among a variety of widely known national guidance documents. STUDY TYPE: Analysis of guidance documents. POPULATION/SUBJECTS/PHANTOM/SPECIMEN/ANIMAL MODEL: Not applicable. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Not specific to field strength. ASSESSMENT: Information was extracted from national MR safety guidance documents about the expected conditions in a safe MR environment, and categorized among (1) facility design, (2) MR equipment selection, and (3) peripheral equipment. Commonalities and differences were identified. STATISTICAL TESTS: Descriptive statistics.
resultsSix publicly available national guidance documents for MR safety were obtained, from countries with relatively high density of MR systems (between 9 and 38 MR systems per million inhabitants): Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA. Full or partial concordance was observed among many measures related to facility design (21/25 conditions), MR equipment features (7/9 conditions), and peripheral equipment (10/13 conditions). DATA
conclusionThis work identified the common and divergent recommendations on facilities and equipment from a variety of guidance documents from national sources. Highlighting common (and uncommon) features recommended by guidance can help users identify weaknesses in their MR environment. This could inform jurisdictions/countries without official guidance and serve in the development of future guidance documents or MR safety training materials. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 5. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 1.
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.