Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23042922›Full record

Trial reportAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2013

Multicenter, intraindividual comparison of single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of the supra-aortic arteries (the Supra-Aortic VALUE study).

Yanjun Li, X Li, D Li, J Lu, X Xing, F Yan, Yuan Li, X Wang, R Iezzi, F De Cobelli

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. GdOman medical journal · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Yanjun LiDepartment of Radiology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
X Li
D Li
J Lu
X Xing
F Yan
Yuan Li
X Wang
R Iezzi
F De Cobelli
Peking University · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITAnhui Provincial Hospital · CNFudan University · CNPeking University First Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeGadobenate dimeglumine has markedly higher R1 relaxivity compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine meaning that lower doses can be used to achieve similar contrast enhancement. Our aim was to prospectively compare single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced MRA of the supra-aortic vasculature. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty-six patients (37 men, 9 women; mean age, 63.5±10.1 years) with known or suspected steno-occlusive disease of the supra-aortic vessels underwent 2 identical CE-MRA examinations at 1.5T. Contrast agents were administered in randomized order, with the 2-fold greater volume of gadopentetate dimeglumine injected at a 2 times faster rate. Image assessment was performed by 3 independent blinded readers for vessel anatomic delineation, detection/exclusion of pathology, and global preference. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV) for detection of ≥60% stenosis was determined for 39/46 patients who underwent preinterventional DSA. Data were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar, and Wald tests in terms of the noninferiority of single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine compared with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. Quantitative enhancement (signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)) was also compared.

resultsAll images were technically adequate. No differences (P=1.0) were noted by any reader for any qualitative parameter. All readers considered single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine equivalent in at least 42/46 patients (91.3% three-reader agreement) for all parameters. Nonsignificant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was reported for all diagnostic performance indicators (sensitivity: 82.7%-88.5% versus 75.0%-80.8%; specificity: 96.4%-98.6% versus 94.6%-98.6%; accuracy: 94.6%-96.1% versus 92.4%-94.9%; PPV: 81.5%-91.5% versus 73.7%-90.7%; NPV: 96.8%-97.8% versus 95.4%-96.4%). No differences (P>.05) in quantitative enhancement were noted.

conclusionsThe image quality and diagnostic performance achieved with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine is at least equivalent to that achieved with 0.2-mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine.

Indexed as

Gadolinium DTPAOrganometallic CompoundsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarotid StenosisCerebral ArteriesContrast MediaCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleMeglumineMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalContrast Mediagadobenic acidGadolinium DTPAMeglumineOrganometallic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID23042922
PMCPMC7964468
OpenAlexW2165872440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.