ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2026
Fully automated free-breathing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3T: A prospective randomized study of image quality, efficiency, and workflow burden.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomation in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scans holds the potential to improve examination efficiency and workflow consistency. Prospective clinical evidence validating automated scan workflows in routine CMR practice remains limited.
methodsIn this prospective randomized study, consecutive patients referred for non-stress CMR were assigned to either an automated or a manual free-breathing scanning workflow. The fully automated workflow integrated automated plane prescription of multiple steps required for successful image acquisition. The primary endpoint was total examination time; secondary endpoints included plane prescription accuracy, image quality scores, scanner idle time, and technologist workload.
resultsOf 255 screened patients, 221 were included (automated, n = 109; manual, n = 112). All examinations were diagnostically adequate. The automated and manual workflows showed a similarly low incidence of plane prescription misalignment, corresponding to 19.3% (21/109) and 17.9% (20/112) misalignment events per examination, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (0.19 vs. 0.18 events per examination, P = 0.780). No significant differences were observed across imaging planes or technologist experience levels, and image quality scores were comparable between workflows (2.74 ± 0.67 vs. 2.69 ± 0.70, P = 0.547). However, the automated scanning workflow significantly reduced total examination time (19.16 ± 2.32 vs. 21.25 ± 2.25 min, P < 0.001) and scanner idle time (7.80 ± 1.80 vs. 10.12 ± 2.03 min, P < 0.001), with consistent savings across all experience levels. Operator workload was also substantially lower with automated scanning, evidenced by fewer mouse clicks and keystrokes (both P < 0.01).
conclusionsAn automated CMR scanning workflow improves examination efficiency and reduces operator workload without compromising image quality or plane prescription accuracy, supporting its integration in routine clinical CMR practice.
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.