Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26253260›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2016

Ultrasound guidance to perform intra-articular injection of gadolinium-based contrast material for magnetic resonance arthrography as an alternative to fluoroscopy: the time is now.

Carmelo Messina, Giuseppe Banfi, Alberto Aliprandi, Giovanni Mauri, Francesco Secchi, Francesco Sardanelli, Luca Maria Sconfienza

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Carmelo MessinaScuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20100, Milano, Italy.
Giuseppe BanfiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milano, Italy.
Alberto AliprandiDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20100, Milano, Italy.
Giovanni MauriDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20100, Milano, Italy.
Francesco SecchiDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20100, Milano, Italy.
Francesco SardanelliDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20100, Milano, Italy.
Luca Maria SconfienzaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20100, Milano, Italy. io@lucasconfienza.it.
University of Milan · ITIRCCS Policlinico San Donato · ITOspedale San Giuseppe · ITVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledMagnetic resonance (MR) imaging has been definitively established as the reference standard in the evaluation of joints in the body. Similarly, magnetic resonance arthrography has emerged as a technique that has been proven to increase significantly the diagnostic performance if compared with conventional MR imaging, especially when dealing with fibrocartilage and articular cartilage abnormalities. Diluted gadolinium can be injected in the joint space using different approaches: under palpation using anatomic landmarks or using an imaging guidance, such as fluoroscopy, computed tomography, or ultrasound. Fluoroscopy has been traditionally used, but the involvement of ionizing radiation should represent a remarkable limitation of this modality. Conversely, ultrasound has emerged as a feasible, cheap, quick, and radiation-free modality that can be used to inject joints, with comparable accuracy of fluoroscopy. In the present paper, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using fluoroscopy or ultrasound in injecting gadolinium-based contrast agents in joints to perform magnetic resonance arthrography, also in view of the new EuroSAFE Imaging initiative promoted by the European Society of Radiology and the recent updates to the European Atomic Energy Community 2013/59 directive on the medical use of ionizing radiation. KEY POINTS: • Intra-articular contrast agent injection can be performed using different imaging modalities • Fluoroscopy is widely used, but uses ionizing radiation • Ultrasound is an accurate, quick, and radiation-free modality for joint injection • X-rays should be avoided when other radiation-free modalities can be used.

Indexed as

ArthrographyCartilage, ArticularContrast MediaFluoroscopyGadoliniumHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularJoint DiseasesMagnetic Resonance ImagingContrast MediaGadoliniumFluoroscopyIonizing radiationMagnetic resonance arthrographyRadiation protectionUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID26253260
OpenAlexW1933802325

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.