127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38013308)
1. Does bore size matter?-A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging.
Michael AE; Heuser A; Moenninghoff C; Surov A; Borggrefe J; Kroeger JR; Niehoff JH
Medicine (Baltimore); 2023 Nov; 102(47):e36069. PubMed ID: 38013308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Patient Comfort in Modern Computed Tomography: What Really Counts.
Niehoff JH; Heuser A; Michael AE; Lennartz S; Borggrefe J; Kroeger JR
Tomography; 2022 May; 8(3):1401-1412. PubMed ID: 35645399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
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. 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]
7. 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]
8. Subjective symptoms of SMFs and RF energy, and risk perception among staff working with MR scanners within two public hospitals in South Africa.
Rathebe PC
Electromagn Biol Med; 2022 Apr; 41(2):152-162. PubMed ID: 35139718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 55,000 patients.
Dewey M; Schink T; Dewey CF
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2007 Nov; 26(5):1322-7. PubMed ID: 17969166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Longer duration entry mitigates nystagmus and vertigo in 7-Tesla MRI.
Pogson JM; Shemesh A; Roberts DC; Zee DS; Otero-Milan J; Ward BK
Front Neurol; 2023; 14():1255105. PubMed ID: 38046576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Supporting claustrophobic patients during Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination- the patient perspective.
Lawal O; Regelous P; Omiyi D
Radiography (Lond); 2023 Oct; 29(6):1108-1114. PubMed ID: 37774577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diagnostic Image Quality of a Low-Field (0.55T) Knee MRI Protocol Using Deep Learning Image Reconstruction Compared with a Standard (1.5T) Knee MRI Protocol.
Lopez Schmidt I; Haag N; Shahzadi I; Frohwein LJ; Schneider C; Niehoff JH; Kroeger JR; Borggrefe J; Moenninghoff C
J Clin Med; 2023 Feb; 12(5):. PubMed ID: 36902704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Claustrophobia and premature termination of magnetic resonance imaging examinations.
Eshed I; Althoff CE; Hamm B; Hermann KG
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2007 Aug; 26(2):401-4. PubMed ID: 17610281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Subjective discomfort in children receiving 3 T MRI and experienced adults' perspective on children's tolerability of 7 T: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
Chou IJ; Tench CR; Gowland P; Jaspan T; Dineen RA; Evangelou N; Abdel-Fahim R; Whitehouse WP; Constantinescu CS
BMJ Open; 2014 Oct; 4(10):e006094. PubMed ID: 25320001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. A large-scale study on subjective perception of discomfort during 7 and 1.5 T MRI examinations.
Heilmaier C; Theysohn JM; Maderwald S; Kraff O; Ladd ME; Ladd SC
Bioelectromagnetics; 2011 Dec; 32(8):610-9. PubMed ID: 21598286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparative study of RF heating of deep brain stimulation devices in vertical vs. horizontal MRI systems.
Vu J; Bhusal B; Nguyen BT; Sanpitak P; Nowac E; Pilitsis J; Rosenow J; Golestanirad L
PLoS One; 2022; 17(12):e0278187. PubMed ID: 36490249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [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]
20. Practical Considerations for Radiologists in Implementing a Patient-friendly MRI Experience.
Oztek MA; Brunnquell CL; Hoff MN; Boulter DJ; Mossa-Basha M; Beauchamp LH; Haynor DL; Nguyen XV
Top Magn Reson Imaging; 2020 Aug; 29(4):181-186. PubMed ID: 32511199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
