Table 1.
Study Characteristics That Might Affect Risk of Bias
| Study | Prospective or retrospective design | Subject selection | Identical whole‐body MRI protocol used in all subjects | Whole‐body MRI interpreter(s) (number, subspecialty, experience) and method of reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee et al14 | Retrospective | Consecutive | Yes | A fellowship‐trained musculoskeletal radiologist, neuroradiologist, and abdominal radiologist with 14, 20, and 15 years' experience). Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus. |
| Perkins et al15 | Not specified | Not specified | Yes | Not reported |
| Saya et al16 | Not specified | Not specified | Yes |
Two radiologists with at least 5 years’ experience. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus with a third radiologist. |
| Ulus et al17 | Prospective | Consecutive | Yes | Two radiologists with ≈15 years' experience in MRI. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus. |
| Tarnoki et al19 | Retrospective | Not specified | Yes |
A resident in radiology (2–4 years’ experience) and two senior radiologists. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus. |
| Cieszanowski et al20 | Retrospective | Not specified | Yes | Two radiologists with 10 and 10–years, experience in MRI interpretation. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus. |
| Hegenscheid et al21 | Prospective | Consecutive | Noa | Two radiology residents with 1–5 years’ experience in MRI interpretation. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus with a senior radiologist with 15 years' experience. |
| Laible et al11 | Prospective | Consecutive | Nob | Two radiologists with more than 6 years' experience in cardiovascular MRI. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus. |
| Takahara et al23 | Prospective | Consecutive | Yes | Two radiologists with 12 and 20 years’ experience in MRI interpretation. Independent reading. |
| Lo et al26 | Prospective | Not specified | Yes | Five radiologists, each with more than 10 years’ experience in MRI interpretation. Method of reading not reported |
| Baumgart et al12 | Not specified | Consecutive | Yes | Interpreter(s) and method of reading not reported |
| Goehde et al5 | Not specified | Not specified | Yes | Two radiologists with >5 years' experience in MRI. Consensus reading. |
a
Male subjects had the option of undergoing contrast‐enhanced cardiac MRI and MR angiography, and female subjects had the option of undergoing cardiac MRI and contrast‐enhanced MR mammography.
b
The first 36 subjects were imaged using a standard clinical 1.5T MRI scanner equipped with eight receiver channels. The following 102 subjects were imaged using a 1.5T MRI scanner equipped with 32 receiver channels.