ArticlePediatric radiology2015
Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography phantom study: intravenous iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents may cause false-negative results in assessment of vesicoureteral reflux in children.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Starting a pediatric contrast ultrasound service: made simple!Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
- Off-label-use of sulfur-hexafluoride in voiding urosonography for diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux in children: A survey on adverse events.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2017Article
- Residual intravesical iodinated contrast: a potential cause of false-negative reflux study at contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography.Pediatric radiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ce-VUS) is commonly requested simultaneously to other diagnostic imaging necessitating intravenous contrast agents. To date there is limited knowldedge about intravesical interactions between different types of contrast agents.
objectiveTo assess the effect of excreted intravenous iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents on the intravesical distribution of ultrasound contrast within contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography. MATERIALS AND
methodsIodinated (iomeprol, iopamidol) and gadolinium-based (gadoterate meglumine) contrast agents were diluted to bladder concentration and injected into balloons filled with saline solution. CT scans were performed to assess the contrast distribution in these phantoms. Regions of interest were placed at the top and bottom side of each balloon and Hounsfield units (HU) were measured. Three other balloons were filled with saline solution and contrast media likewise. The ultrasound contrast agent sulphur hexafluoride was added and its distribution was assessed using sonography.
resultsMDCT scans showed a separation of two liquid layers in all bladder phantoms with the contrast layers located at the bottom and the saline solution at the top. Significant differences of the HU measurements at the top and bottom side were observed (P < 0.001-0.007). Following injection of ultrasound contrast agent, US showed its distribution exclusively among the saline solution.
conclusionsFalse-negative results of contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography may occur if it is performed shortly after imaging procedures requiring intravenous contrast.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.