ArticlePediatric radiology2015
Quality of abdominal computed tomography angiography: hand versus mechanical intravenous contrast administration 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbdominal CT angiography has been increasingly used for evaluation of various conditions related to abdominal vasculature in the pediatric population. However, no direct comparison has evaluated the quality of abdominal CT angiography in children using hand versus mechanical administration of intravenous (IV) contrast agent.
objectiveTo compare hand versus mechanical administration of IV contrast agent in the quality of abdominal CT angiography in the pediatric population. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical record to identify pediatric patients (≤18 years) who had abdominal CT angiography between August 2012 and August 2013. The information obtained includes: (1) type of administration of IV contrast agent (hand [group 1] versus mechanical [group 2]), (2) size (gauge) of IV catheter, (3) amount of contrast agent administered and (4) rate of contrast agent administration (ml/s). Two reviewers independently performed qualitative and quantitative evaluation of abdominal CT angiography image quality. Qualitative evaluation of abdominal CT angiography image quality was performed by visual assessment of the degree of contrast enhancement in the region of interest (ROI) based on a 4-point scale. Quantitative evaluation of each CT angiography examination was performed by measuring the Hounsfield unit (HU) using an ROI within the abdominal aorta at two levels (celiac axis and the inferior mesenteric artery) for each child. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the F-test was applied to compare contrast enhancement within the abdominal aorta at two levels (celiac axis and inferior mesenteric artery) between hand administration and mechanical administration of IV contrast methods with adjustment for age.
resultsWe identified 46 pediatric patients (24 male, 22 female; mean age 7.3 ± 5.5 years; range 5 weeks to 18 years) with abdominal CT angiography performed during the study period. Of these patients, 16 (35%; 1.7 ± 2.2 years; range 5 weeks to 5 years) had hand administration of IV contrast agent and 30 (65%; 10.2 ± 4.2 years; range 4-18 years) had mechanical administration of IV contrast agent. All 46 abdominal CT angiography studies were of diagnostic quality based on qualitative evaluation (all ≥3). All abdominal CT angiography studies from both groups showed diagnostic quality of contrast enhancement (>150 HU) at both the celiac axis and the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) levels. The contrast enhancement of the abdominal aorta was not significantly different between the IV contrast administration methods at either the celiac axis level (360 ± 158 vs. 353 ± 116, P = 0.24) or the IMA level (340 ± 140 vs. 351 ± 90, P = 0.27), adjusting for age.
conclusionDiagnostic-quality abdominal CT angiography can be achieved using hand administration of IV contrast agent in infants and young children (≤5 years).
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.