ArticleBioMed research international2015
A Novel Foam Contrast Agent Suitable for Fluoroscopic Interventional Procedure: Comparative Study of Physical Properties and Experimental Intervention in Animal Model.
Article in BioMed research international, 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In fluoroscopic contrast study for interventional procedure, liquid contrast agent may be diluted in body fluid, losing its contrast effect. We developed a novel contrast agent of "foam state" to maintain contrast effect for enough time and performed a comparative study of physical properties and its usefulness in experimental intervention in animal model. The mean size of microbubble of foam contrast was 13.8 ± 3.6 µm. The viscosity was 201.0 ± 0.624 cP (centipoise) and the specific gravity was 0.616. The foam decayed slowly and it had 97.5 minutes of half-life. In terms of the sustainability in a slow flow environment, foam contrast washed out much more slowly than a conventional contrast. In experimental colonic stent placement, foam contrast revealed significantly better results than conventional contrast in procedure time, total amount of contrast usage, and the number of injections (p < 0.05). Our foam contrast has high viscosity and low specific gravity and maintains foam state for a sufficient time. Foam contrast with these properties was useful in experimental intervention in animal model. We anticipate that foam contrast may be applied to various kinds of interventional procedures.
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.