150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24391767)
1. High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.
Enders J; Rief M; Zimmermann E; Asbach P; Diederichs G; Wetz C; Siebert E; Wagner M; Hamm B; Dewey M
PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e83427. PubMed ID: 24391767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reduction of claustrophobia with short-bore versus open magnetic resonance imaging: a randomized controlled trial.
Enders J; Zimmermann E; Rief M; Martus P; Klingebiel R; Asbach P; Klessen C; Diederichs G; Wagner M; Teichgräber U; Bengner T; Hamm B; Dewey M
PLoS One; 2011; 6(8):e23494. PubMed ID: 21887259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reduction of claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: methods and design of the "CLAUSTRO" randomized controlled trial.
Enders J; Zimmermann E; Rief M; Martus P; Klingebiel R; Asbach P; Klessen C; Diederichs G; Bengner T; Teichgräber U; Hamm B; Dewey M
BMC Med Imaging; 2011 Feb; 11():4. PubMed ID: 21310075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets.
Bangard C; Paszek J; Berg F; Eyl G; Kessler J; Lackner K; Gossmann A
Eur J Radiol; 2007 Oct; 64(1):152-7. PubMed ID: 17374468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Wide, short bore magnetic resonance at 1.5 t: reducing the failure rate in claustrophobic patients.
Hunt CH; Wood CP; Lane JI; Bolster BD; Bernstein MA; Witte RJ
Clin Neuroradiol; 2011 Sep; 21(3):141-4. PubMed ID: 21598040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. More Space, Less Noise-New-generation Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems Can Improve Patient Comfort: A Prospective 0.55T-1.5T-Scanner Comparison.
Rusche T; Vosshenrich J; Winkel DJ; Donners R; Segeroth M; Bach M; Merkle EM; Breit HC
J Clin Med; 2022 Nov; 11(22):. PubMed ID: 36431182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. MR-guided core biopsy with MR fluoroscopy using a short, wide-bore 1.5-Tesla scanner: feasibility and initial results.
Stattaus J; Maderwald S; Forsting M; Barkhausen J; Ladd ME
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2008 May; 27(5):1181-7. PubMed ID: 18425833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Minimizing table time in patients with claustrophobia using focused ferumoxytol-enhanced MR angiography (
Shahrouki P; Nguyen KL; Moriarty JM; Plotnik AN; Yoshida T; Finn JP
Br J Radiol; 2021 Sep; 94(1125):20210430. PubMed ID: 34415199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Tolerance of magnetic resonance imaging in children and adolescents performed in a 1.5 Tesla MR scanner with an open design].
Adamietz B; Cavallaro A; Radkow T; Alibek S; Holter W; Bautz WA; Staatz G
Rofo; 2007 Aug; 179(8):826-31. PubMed ID: 17577870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Anxiety during magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in relation to scanner design and size.
Ahlander BM; Engvall J; Ericsson E
Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):110-116. PubMed ID: 32052788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Patient preferences for development in MRI scanner design: a survey of claustrophobic patients in a randomized study.
Iwan E; Yang J; Enders J; Napp AE; Rief M; Dewey M
Eur Radiol; 2021 Mar; 31(3):1325-1335. PubMed ID: 32876831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of echo spacing and readout bandwidth on basic performances of EPI-fMRI acquisition sequences implemented on two 1.5 T MR scanner systems.
Giannelli M; Diciotti S; Tessa C; Mascalchi M
Med Phys; 2010 Jan; 37(1):303-10. PubMed ID: 20175493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quantitative assessment of intrahepatic lipids using fat-selective imaging with spectral-spatial excitation and in-/opposed-phase gradient echo imaging techniques within a study population of extremely obese patients: feasibility on a short, wide-bore MR scanner.
Springer F; Machann J; Schwenzer NF; Ballweg V; Würslin C; Schneider JH; Fritsche A; Claussen CD; Schick F
Invest Radiol; 2010 Aug; 45(8):484-90. PubMed ID: 20479651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An ultra-high field strength MR image-guided robotic needle delivery system for in-bore small animal interventions.
Gravett M; Cepek J; Fenster A
Med Phys; 2017 Nov; 44(11):5544-5555. PubMed ID: 28849592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of different cardiac MRI sequences at 1.5 T/3.0 T with respect to signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios - initial experience.
Gutberlet M; Spors B; Grothoff M; Freyhardt P; Schwinge K; Plotkin M; Amthauer H; Noeske R; Felix R
Rofo; 2004 Jun; 176(6):801-8. PubMed ID: 15173972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Safety and image quality of MR-conditional external fixators for 1.5 Tesla extremity MR.
Ballard DH; Garrett JD; Simoncini AA; Barbeito S; Morandi MM
Emerg Radiol; 2021 Jun; 28(3):581-588. PubMed ID: 33449260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Simultaneous Multislice Accelerated Turbo Spin Echo Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison and Combination With In-Plane Parallel Imaging Acceleration for High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Knee.
Fritz J; Fritz B; Zhang J; Thawait GK; Joshi DH; Pan L; Wang D
Invest Radiol; 2017 Sep; 52(9):529-537. PubMed ID: 28430716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Use of a combined MR imaging and interventional radiology suite for intraprocedural monitoring of uterine artery embolization.
Vin AP; Rhee TK; Ryu RK; Larson AC; Nikolaidis P; Chrisman HB; Vogelzang RL; Omary RA
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2007 Nov; 18(11):1362-7. PubMed ID: 18003985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Performance evaluation of an 85-cm-bore X-ray computed tomography scanner designed for radiation oncology and comparison with current diagnostic CT scanners.
Garcia-Ramirez JL; Mutic S; Dempsey JF; Low DA; Purdy JA
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2002 Mar; 52(4):1123-31. PubMed ID: 11958910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Ultrafast Intracranial Vessel Imaging With Non-Cartesian Spiral 3-Dimensional Time-of-Flight Magnetic Resonance Angiography at 1.5 T: An In Vitro and Clinical Study in Healthy Volunteers.
Sartoretti T; van Smoorenburg L; Sartoretti E; Schwenk Á; Binkert CA; Kulcsár Z; Becker AS; Graf N; Wyss M; Sartoretti-Schefer S
Invest Radiol; 2020 May; 55(5):293-303. PubMed ID: 31895223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
