ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2024
Awareness of strengths and weaknesses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: results from a questionnaire survey.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Extensive research has established cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) as a powerful tool for diagnosing and monitoring various cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, CMR has yet to reach its full potential in routine clinical care, which is mainly due to reimbursement issues. Among other factors, overcoming this gap requires adequate awareness among healthcare professionals and potential patients, the extent of which is currently unknown. Therefore, we conducted a survey to assess awareness and identify knowledge gaps regarding the clinical role and socio-economic factors associated with CMR. Methods and results: One hundred forty-four subjects not involved in direct patient care were enrolled at a German health conference and completed a 24-item survey, including procedural, clinical, and socio-economic questions about CMR. Respondents were well aware of the socio-economic impact of CVD. Common CMR indications were correctly identified by most participants, but only 22.9% knew the full spectrum. Participants underestimated the modality's benefits, such as absence of ionizing radiation and rare allergic reactions to contrast agents (only 70.9% and 37.6% correct answers, respectively). Respondents estimated the therapeutic guidance of CMR to be high (50.7% voted impact > 50%) and the annual demand to be increasing (89.9%). Attitudes towards CMR were generally positive, with 77.1% of participants willing to travel >25 km and 60.4% willing to pay >125 Euros to have a CMR examination. Conclusion: Despite great interest in CMR, significant knowledge gaps hinder its optimal use in clinical practice. The development and implementation of awareness and education strategies are needed to realize the full clinical potential of CMR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.