However, it is unlikely that these factors had a relevant influence on the event rates as pain usually occurs in the course of the MR examination and there were only two patients in each study group who had a claustrophobic event during and not before imaging. We also found that patients with prior negative MR experiences had significantly more claustrophobic events. Other factors have not shown significant influence on event rates. Fourth, several studies have shown the importance of support by nursing staff and technicians. It might have influenced patients that they knew that the staff was aware of their anxiety. In order to keep the influence as constant as possible, two AbMole Butylhydroxyanisole nurses supported the study. Furthermore, the technicians were instructed to support the patients as in clinical routine avoiding being overly protective to reflect clinical reality. Last, it should be mentioned that there are now MR scanners with a slightly shorter and wider bore available. Several non-randomized studies have shown the potential of recent high-field short-bore and open panoramic MR scanners to reduce claustrophobia. A recent study by Bangard et al. concluded that open MR imaging has great potential for reducing claustrophobic events. In 36 claustrophobic patients, the scan termination rate was reduced to 8% compared to 56% in previous conventional closed-bore imaging in the same patients. In a study by Spouse et al., 96% of 50 claustrophobic patients, who were unable to complete a conventional closed-bore MR scan, successfully underwent imaging on an open interventional MR scanner with a gap in the bore of the magnet. However, friends or relatives were allowed to stay in the magnet room and many patients indicated that this, beside the scanner design, had helped them considerably. Other clinical studies have investigated the potential of short-bore MR scanners to reduce claustrophobia. Dewey et al. compared a short-with a closed-bore scanner in 55,734 consecutive patients and found the short-bore scanner to reduce claustrophobic AbMole Capromorelin tartrate events by a factor of 3. In contrast, Dantendorfer et al. found no significant difference in the occurrence of claustrophobic events in a retrospective study on 5,682 patients examined in either a shortor a closed-bore MR scanner. However, they discussed a selection bias because staff was referring highly anxious patients for examination on the short-bore scanner. Compared to our study, the reported trials were not randomized and not comparing different MR scanners with more patient-centered designs. No study assessed at which point in the MR imaging procedure claustrophobia did occur. Moreover, some of the results are difficult to interpret because of methodological weaknesses such as selection bias. Regarding the predictive value of the CLQ, in a study by McIsaac et al. in 80 MR-naive outpatients, CLQ scores significantly discriminated between patients who experienced claustrophobia during MR imaging and those who did not. McGlynn et al. showed CLQ suffocation subscale scores to strongly predict self-reported subjective.