ArticleBMJ open2026
Diagnostic performance of ultra-low field neurological magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this systematic review protocol is to provide the current reported level of diagnostic performance of ultra-low field MRI (ULF-MRI) in brain imaging of both paediatrics (including neonates and infants) and adults from a range of neurological conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use the population/problem, intervention, comparison and outcome framework to break down the keywords to search PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar without restriction of geographical location, study design and publication status. Other sources such as the reference list of selected studies will also be searched, and the search will be documented with a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 3 tool will be used to assess the quality of the retrieved studies. After screening the studies, a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of individual and pooled diagnostic accuracy will be conducted using Meta-DiSc V1.4. Results expressed as forest plots, pooled heterogeneity values, 95% CIs, probability values and summary receiver operating characteristic curve plots will be used for data synthesis. The review commenced in January 2026 and is anticipated to conclude in June 2026. At the time of protocol submission, study identification, screening, data extraction, quality assessment and evidence synthesis have not yet commenced. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. Data do not include animal or human participant recruitment or personal individual data. All data are already published in the public domain; therefore, ethical approval is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 1308164.
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.