ArticleNursing open2026
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Safety Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Among Radiology Nurses in Saudi Arabia: A National Multicentre Study.
Article in Nursing open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety-related knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) among nurses working in radiology departments across Saudi Arabia and to identify independent predictors of MRI safety knowledge.
designA national multicentre cross-sectional study.
methodsA national multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted among 153 radiology nurses using a structured self-administered questionnaire to assess socio-demographic characteristics and MRI safety-related KAP. Descriptive statistics summarized the response distributions. Inferential analyses included chi-square tests, t-tests, ANOVA and multiple linear regression to determine the predictors of knowledge scores.
resultsHigh correct response rates were observed for operational safety items, including metallic object screening (95.4%), projectile hazards (87.6%), MRI-compatible equipment use (90.2%) and hearing protection requirements (85.6%) (all p < 0.0001). Conceptual gaps were identified: only 54.9% correctly recognized that MRI does not use ionizing radiation, and 51.6% correctly understood that pregnant staff are not automatically prohibited from working in MRI departments. Attitude and practice responses showed strong agreement across items (p < 0.0001). Knowledge scores differed significantly by age group (p = 0.017), hospital sector (p = 0.039), daily MRI patient contact (p < 0.001) and formal MRI safety training (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, older age, daily MRI patient contact and formal MRI safety training remained independent predictors of knowledge scores, with the model explaining 21.6% of the variance (R
conclusionRadiology nurses demonstrated strong self-reported MRI safety practices and positive safety attitudes; however, selected conceptual knowledge gaps remain. Structured and periodic MRI safety education may strengthen radiology nursing competency and support institutional MRI safety performance. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.