Table 5.
Results
| Study Points | Case (n = 64) | Control (n = 41) |
|---|---|---|
| Prior MRI | 40 (62.5%) | 22 (53%) |
| Anxiety preceding MRI | 25 (39%) | 16 (39%) |
| Required sequence repeated | 3 (4.7%) | 2 (4.8%) |
| Required coaching | 4 (6.2%) | 4 (9.7%) |
| Patient experiencea (subjective) | Mean: 1.67 ± 0.60 SD, median: 2 | Mean: 1.74 ± 0.63 SD, median: 3 |
| Patient experienceb (objective) | Mean: 2.42 ± 0.94 SD, median: 4 (sound intervention) Mean: 2.46 ± 1.01 SD, median: 4 (scent intervention) |
Mean: 2.81 ± 0.70 SD, median: 3 |
| Motion artefactc | 1.08 ± 0.36 SD | 1.13 ± 0.53 SD |
SD, standard deviation.
a
Patients individually graded their experience of the MRI study in terms of anxiety or claustrophobia based on a 4-point numeric scale (1 = relaxing, 2 = equivocal, 3 = tolerable anxiety and 4 = intolerable).
b
Patient experience was further graded based on comments on the patient questionnaire and was scored on a 5-point scale by two observers. Grading scale was: 1 = very positive experience, 2 = positive experience, 3 = normal experience or no comment, 4 = negative experience and 5 = very negative experience.
c
Motion artefact was graded on a 4-point scale: 1 = no motion, 2 = minimal motion, 3 = moderate motion interfering with image interpretation and 4 = severe motion limiting image interpretation.