ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
The Diagnostic Yield of Whole-Body MRI as a Multi-disease Screening Modality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDisease screening is a mainstay of modern healthcare. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) is marketed as a multi-disease screening modality. The diagnostic yield and clinical utility of WBMRI for population-based disease screening are uncertain.
objectivesOur systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize and critically appraise the available literature on WBMRI without an evidence-based indication. Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of WBMRI and assess the scope of findings.
designWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception through August 2025. This review was registered with PROSPERO (No.: CRD42024554848). Prespecified criteria for study inclusion included literature that reported WBMRI findings in a population without an evidence-based indication for WBMRI. Data appraisal was performed by two independent reviewers with summary data extracted from published reports. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes evaluated included pooled proportions of individuals with no clinical findings reported, any clinical finding, non-malignant actionable findings that required subsequent diagnostic workup, and new cancer diagnoses. KEY
resultsIn a pooled cohort of 18,043 individuals from 17 heterogeneous low-quality studies who underwent WBMRI, 16.9% (95% CI 5.1; 43.7) had no findings reported, while 78.0% (95% CI 44.9; 93.9) had a finding reported. Clinically actionable non-malignant findings were reported in 14.8% (95% CI 6.6-30.0%); 58.2% (95% CI 36.0; 77.5) of these individuals pursued additional laboratory work and/or imaging, and 20.8% (95% CI 9.7; 39.2) pursued a subsequent procedure. The prevalence of malignancy was 1.4% (95% CI 0.9-2.2%). Clinical outcomes associated with discovery of lesions could not be determined.
conclusionsThe majority of WBMRIs performed in a population without an evidence-based indication result in findings that are normal or do not require follow-up. Clinical outcomes associated with discovery of actionable lesions are unknown. High-quality observational data or randomized trials are needed to inform the efficacy of WBMRI for multi-disease screening. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42823587What 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.