Table 3 Examples of studies without a direct contribution to patient care^a,b

[22]

Nuclear medicine

Study purpose:

“The aim of this study is to measure acute changes in NaF uptake in human bone due to exercise-induced loading”

Study conclusion:

“Bone loading induces an acute response in bone physiology as quantified by [18F]NaF PET kinetics. Dynamic imaging after bone loading using [18F]NaF PET is a promising diagnostic tool in bone physiology and imaging of biomechanics”

[23]

Magnetic resonance

Study purpose:

“To qualitatively and quantitatively compare the image quality between single-shot echo-planar (SS-EPI) and multi-shot echo-planar (IMS-EPI) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in female pelvis”

Study conclusion:

“IMS-EPI showed better image quality with lower geometric distortion without affecting the quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient, though the signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio decreased due to post-processing limitations”

[24]

Breast

Study purpose:

“To develop a fast three-dimensional method for simultaneous T1 and T2 quantification for breast imaging by using MR fingerprinting”

Study conclusion:

“A method was developed for breast imaging by using the MR fingerprinting technique, which allows simultaneous and volumetric quantification of T1 and T2 relaxation times for breast tissues”

[25]

Gastrointestinal–abdominal

Study purpose:

“To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy.”

Study conclusion:

“MRE and US are well tolerated. Although MRE generates greater burden, longer recovery and is less preferred than US, it is more acceptable than colonoscopy. Patients, however, place greater emphasis on diagnostic accuracy than burden”

[26]

Urogenital

Study purpose:

“The objectives of this study were to assess whether the accuracy of urologists in identifying the presence of clinically significant cancer based on a standardized multiparametric MRI set could be improved by completion of a 2-d training course”

Study conclusion:

“Whilst we require expert radiologists to report prostate MRI, this study has demonstrated that identification of clinically significant cancer on prostate MRI by urologists is improved following exposure to a 2-d teaching course. These results would support efforts to integrate prostate MRI teaching courses into the training of urologists managing patients with prostate cancer”