ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2016
Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography.
Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04582500 (Low-osmolar Contrast Tagging in Minimal Cathartic CT Colonography), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Low-osmolar Contrast Tagging in Minimal Cathartic CT Colonography
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-osmolar contrast tagging in minimally cathartic CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening: an observational study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Observational
- Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Evaluating suspected small bowel obstruction with the water-soluble contrast challenge.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Performance of Multitarget Stool DNA and CT Colonography for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.Radiology · 2020Article
- CT colonography screening in extracolonic cancer survivors: impact on rates of colorectal and extracolonic findings by cancer type.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2019Article
- CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2017Article
- Colorectal Findings at Repeat CT Colonography Screening after Initial CT Colonography Screening Negative for Polyps Larger than 5 mm.Radiology · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to objectively and subjectively compare nonionic iohexol and ionic diatrizoate iodinated oral contrast agents as part of a cathartic bowel regimen within the same CT colonography (CTC) cohort, with otherwise identical preparations. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, 46 adults with no symptoms (mean age, 59.4 years; 26 men and 20 women) returning for follow-up CTC over a 9-month interval underwent the same bowel preparation with the exception of 75 mL of iohexol 350 in place of 60 mL of diatrizoate. All other preparation components (bisacodyl, magnesium citrate, and 2% barium) remained constant. Objective volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and fluid attenuation was performed. Additionally, two radiologists experienced with CTC who were blinded to the specific bowel preparation scored each of six colonic segments for adherent residual solid stool using a previously validated 4-point scale (0 for no stool; 1-3 for increasing residual stool). A paired t test was used for comparison of the cohorts.
resultsNo clear clinically meaningful difference was found between the two preparations on overall objective or subjective evaluation. The mean (± SD) residual fluid volume was 173 ± 126 mL with the iohexol preparation and 130 ± 79 mL with the diatrizoate preparation (p = 0.02). The mean total colonic stool score was 2.5 (0.42/segment) with iohexol and 2.3 (0.38/segment) with diatrizoate (p = 0.69). The mean fluid attenuation was higher with iohexol (849 ± 270 HU) compared with diatrizoate (732 ± 168 HU) (p = 0.03).
conclusionOn the basis of this direct intrapatient comparison, we found that oral iohexol is a suitable alternative to diatrizoate for fluid tagging as part of a cathartic bowel preparation at CTC. Because this nonionic tagging agent is more palatable, less expensive, and likely safer than ionic diatrizoate, our CTC program now uses iohexol as the standard recommended regimen.
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.