Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26069649›Full record

ArticleCartilage2013

Bath Concentration of Anionic Contrast Agents Does Not Affect Their Diffusion and Distribution in Articular Cartilage In Vitro.

Tuomo S Silvast, Jukka S Jurvelin, Virpi Tiitu, Thomas M Quinn, Juha Töyräs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cartilage, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Study on transport of small molecule rhodamine B within different layers of cartilage].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Effects of human articular cartilage constituents on simultaneous diffusion of cationic and nonionic contrast agents.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Tuomo S SilvastSIB-Labs, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland ; Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland ; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
Jukka S JurvelinDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Virpi TiituInstitute of Biomedicine, Anatomy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Thomas M QuinnDepartment of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Juha TöyräsDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland ; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDifferences in contrast agent diffusion reflect changes in composition and structure of articular cartilage. However, in clinical application the contrast agent concentration in the joint capsule varies, which may affect the reliability of contrast enhanced cartilage tomography (CECT). In the present study, effects of concentration of x-ray contrast agents on their diffusion and equilibrium distribution in cartilage were investigated.

designFull-thickness cartilage discs (d = 4.0 mm, n = 120) were detached from bovine patellae (n = 24). The diffusion of various concentrations of ioxaglate (5, 10, 21, 50 mM) and iodide (30, 60, 126, 300 mM) was allowed only through the articular surface. Samples were imaged with a clinical peripheral quantitative computed tomography scanner before immersion in contrast agent, and after 1, 5, 9, 16, 25, and 29 hours in the bath.

resultsDiffusion and partition coefficients were similar between different contrast agent concentrations. The diffusion coefficient of iodide (473 ± 133 µm(2)/s) was greater (P ≤ 0.001) than that of ioxaglate (92 ± 46 µm(2)/s). In full-thickness cartilage, the partition coefficient (at 29 h) of iodide (71 ± 5%) was greater (P ≤ 0.02 with most concentrations) than that of ioxaglate (62 ± 6%).

conclusionsSignificant differences in partition and diffusion coefficient of two similarly charged (-1) contrast agents were detected, which shows the effect of steric interactions. However, the increase in solute concentration did not increase its partition coefficient. In clinical application, it is important that contrast agent concentration does not affect the interpretation of CECT imaging.

Indexed as

articular cartilagecomputed tomographycontrast agent concentrationdiffusionsteric hindrance

Identifiers

PMID26069649
PMCPMC4297109

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.