ArticleEuropean radiology2014
An evaluation of the use of oral contrast media in abdominopelvic CT.
Article in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Image quality of cone beam computed tomography for evaluation of extremity fractures in the presence of metal hardware: visual grading characteristics analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of different oral contrast media (OCM) for abdominopelvic CT examinations performed for follow-up general oncological indications. The objectives were to establish anatomical image quality criteria for abdominopelvic CT; use these criteria to evaluate and compare image quality using positive OCM, neutral OCM and no OCM; and evaluate possible benefits for the medical imaging department.
methodsForty-six adult patients attending a follow-up abdominopelvic CT for general oncological indications and who had a previous abdominopelvic CT with positive OCM (n = 46) were recruited and prospectively placed into either the water (n = 25) or no OCM (n = 21) group. Three radiologists performed absolute visual grading analysis (VGA) to assess image quality by grading the fulfilment of 24 anatomical image quality criteria.
resultsVisual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis of the data showed comparable image quality with regards to reproduction of abdominal structures, bowel discrimination, presence of artefacts, and visualization of the amount of intra-abdominal fat for the three OCM protocols.
conclusionAll three OCM protocols provided similar image quality for follow-up abdominopelvic CT for general oncological indications. KEY POINTS: • Positive oral contrast media are routinely used for abdominopelvic multidetector computed tomography • Experimental study comparing image quality using three different oral contrast materials • Three different oral contrast materials result in comparable CT image quality • Benefits for patients and medical imaging department.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25027836What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.