Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
2011

Reducing Claustrophobia in MRI Scans

Sample size: 174 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Enders Judith, Zimmermann Elke, Rief Matthias, Martus Peter, Klingebiel Randolf, Asbach Patrick, Klessen Christian, Diederichs Gerd, Wagner Moritz, Teichgräber Ulf, Bengner Thomas, Hamm Bernd, Dewey Marc

Primary Institution: Charité, Medical School, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Hypothesis

Is a short-bore or an open magnetic resonance (MR) scanner superior in alleviating claustrophobia?

Conclusion

Both short-bore and open MR scanners showed high rates of claustrophobia events, indicating a need for further improvements in scanner design.

Supporting Evidence

  • 33 claustrophobic events occurred in the short-bore group (39%) compared to 23 in the open group (26%).
  • Patients in the short-bore group experienced claustrophobic events earlier than those in the open group.
  • 69% of MR examinations revealed new findings that led to changes in medical treatment.

Takeaway

Some people feel scared in MRI machines, and this study looked at two types of machines to see which one helps them feel less scared. Both types still made many people feel scared.

Methodology

Patients were randomly assigned to receive evaluation by either open or short-bore MR, and outcomes were assessed based on claustrophobic events during imaging.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to the inability to blind participants and assessors to the scanner type.

Limitations

The study was conducted at a single center, which may limit generalizability, and neither patients nor assessors could be blinded to the study group.

Participant Demographics

80% of participants were women, mean age was 53.1 years, and 62% had a BMI greater than 25.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.08

Confidence Interval

95% CI 28% to 50% for short-bore group, 95% CI 18% to 37% for open group

Statistical Significance

p=0.08

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0023494

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication