↓ Skip to main content

Paediatric MRI under sedation: is it necessary? What is the evidence for the alternatives?

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
Title
Paediatric MRI under sedation: is it necessary? What is the evidence for the alternatives?
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, June 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00247-011-2147-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea D. Edwards, Owen J. Arthurs

Abstract

To achieve diagnostic images during MRI examinations, small children need to lie still to avoid movement artefact. To reduce patient motion, obviate the need for voluntary immobilisation or breath-holding and therefore obtain high-quality images, MRI of infants is frequently carried out under sedation or general anaesthesia, but this is not without risk and expense. However, many other techniques are available for preparing children for MRI, which have not been fully evaluated. Here, we evaluate the advantages and disadvantage of sedation and anaesthesia for MRI. We then evaluate the alternatives, which include neonatal comforting techniques, sleep manipulation, and appropriate adaptation of the physical environment. We summarize the evidence for their use according to an established hierarchy. Lastly, we discuss several factors that will influence the choice of imaging preparation, including patient factors, imaging factors and service provision. The choice of approach to paediatric MRI is multi-factorial, with limited scientific evidence for many of the current approaches. These considerations may enable others to image children using MRI under different circumstances.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 218 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 16%
Student > Master 31 14%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Other 16 7%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 41 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 11%
Psychology 22 10%
Engineering 16 7%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 52 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#8,102,546
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#678
of 2,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,691
of 117,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,257 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 117,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.