Evaluation of Adult Outpatient Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sedation Practices: Are Patients Being Sedated Optimally?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of anxiolytics in adult outpatient magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) centres and to determine whether utilisation is optimal based on the pharmacology of the drugs used, who prescribes these drugs, and how patients are managed after administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Identical paper and Web-based surveys were used to anonymously collect data about radiologists' use of anxiolytic agents for adult outpatient MRI examinations. The survey questions were about the type of facility, percentage of studies that require sedation, the drug used and route of administration, who orders the drug, timing of administration, patient monitoring during and observation after the study, use of a dedicated nurse for monitoring, and use of standard sedation and discharge protocols. The chi(2) analysis for statistical association among variables was used. RESULTS: Eighty-five of 263 surveys were returned (32% response rate). The radiologist ordered the medication (53%) in slightly more facilities than the referring physician (44%) or the nurse. Forty percent of patients received medication 15-30 minutes before MRI, which is too early for peak effect of oral or sublingual drugs. Lorazepam was most commonly used (64% first choice). Facilities with standard sedation protocols (56%) were more likely to use midazolam than those without standard sedation protocols (17% vs 10%), to have a nurse for monitoring (P = .032), to have standard discharge criteria (P = .001), and to provide written information regarding adverse effects (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Many outpatients in MRI centres may be scanned before the peak effect of anxiolytics prescribed. A standard sedation protocol in such centres is associated with a more appropriate drug choice, as well as optimized monitoring and postprocedure care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".