ReviewCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2026
Provider and patient perceptions on the usage of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in oncology: a scoping review.
Review in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 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
Abstract
Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) is increasingly used for early diagnosis, cancer staging and treatment monitoring, but adoption remains sub-optimal. The aim of this scoping review was to map research on patient and provider perspectives of WB-MRI in oncology, and identify methodological limitations and evidence gaps. The review followed the JBI methodological framework and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to 29th March 2025: Cochrane Library, PubMed, APA PsycINFO, APA Psych Articles, and Academic Search Complete. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two authors independently, using COVIDENCE software, with results summarized via narrative synthesis. Twenty-eight studies met eligibility criteria, covering four distinct populations: general population (n = 8), people with cancer pre-disposition syndromes (n = 7), or suspected or confirmed cancer (n = 10), and radiologists (n = 3). Few studies examined beliefs about WB-MRI. Limited evidence shows awareness of WB-MRI attributes, such as the absence of ionising radiation, predicts preferences among cancer patients. Research on radiologists shows low levels of WB-MRI adoption in the USA and UK, attributed to limited scanner availability and a lack of trained radiologists. Among patients, uptake is modest (60%) in both population cohort studies and those recommended for surveillance, but the role of scan beliefs in predicting uptake has not been explored. Undergoing WB-MRI, or being notified of incidental findings, does not appear to cause adverse psychological consequences, but cancer specific concerns were not always assessed and research not always adequately powered. Evidence of provider and patient perspectives towards WB-MRI is limited and of varying quality. The development of validated measures examining WB-MRI beliefs and experience would enhance research and facilitate future data synthesis.Clinical trial number Not applicable.
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.