Trial reportLa Radiologia medica2015
Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: does a higher relaxivity MR contrast agent permit a reduction of the dose administered for routine vascular imaging applications?
Trial report in La Radiologia medica, 2015. 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.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe authors prospectively compared single dose (0.1 mmol/kg bodyweight) gadobenate dimeglumine with double dose (0.2 mmol/kg bodyweight) gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) in patients with suspected or known steno-occlusive disease of the carotid, renal or peripheral vasculature using an intra-individual crossover study design. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-eight patients with suspected or known steno-occlusive disease of the carotid (n = 16), renal (n = 5) or peripheral arteries (n = 7) were randomised to receive either 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine or 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine for a first CE-MRA procedure. After 3-5 days all patients underwent a second identical CE-MRA procedure with the other contrast agent. Three blinded readers assessed images for vessel anatomical delineation, disease detection/exclusion, and global preference. Diagnostic performance for detection of ≥51 % stenosis was determined for 20/28 patients who also underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Non-inferiority was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank, McNemar and Wald tests. Quantitative (signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio) enhancement based on 3D maximum intensity projection reconstructions was compared.
resultsNo differences were noted for any qualitative parameter. Equivalence was reported for all diagnostic preference end-points. Superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was reported by all readers for sensitivity for disease detection (80.8-86.5 vs. 75.0-82.7 %). Quantitative enhancement was similar for single dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double dose gadopentetate dimeglumine.
conclusionsUnder identical examination conditions a single 0.1 mmol/kg body weight dose of gadobenate dimeglumine can fully replace a double 0.2 mmol/kg body weight dose of gadopentetate dimeglumine for routine CE-MRA procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25183340What 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.