ReviewEmergency radiology2016
Oral contrast for CT in patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal and pelvic pain: what should be its current role?
Review in Emergency radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Enteral contrast media-when, what, and how?]Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- [Enteral contrast agents-When, what and how?]Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Imaging of acute small bowel pathologies in oncology patients in the ER part I: the role of Computed Tomography (CT) for the evaluation of Tumor and infections.Emergency radiology · 2025Review
- Oral CT Contrast Agents: What's New and Why, From theAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Review
- Multi-energy computed tomography and material quantification: Current barriers and opportunities for advancement.Medical physics · 2020Review
- Low-dose CT imaging of the acute abdomen using model-based iterative reconstruction: a prospective study.Emergency radiology · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positive oral contrast agents, including barium suspensions and water-soluble iodinated solutions, have traditionally been used in conjunction with the CT evaluation of patients with abdominal and pelvic pain. Due to continued advancements in CT technology, and due to increasing obesity and correspondingly a general increase in the intra-abdominal and intra-pelvic fat separating bowel loops in North American patients and in patients in other parts of the world over the past few decades, the ability of radiologists to accurately evaluate the cause of acute symptoms has substantially improved. Recent research and evolving imaging society guidelines/systematic reviews increasingly support performing CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis without the need for positive oral contrast in these types of adult patient populations, in most clinical situations. Increased patient throughput, patient preference, patient safety, and most importantly, retention of high diagnostic accuracy, are reasons for this recent change in practice to routinely omit the use of enteric contrast agents for the majority of patients presenting with acute abdominal and pelvic pain whom are undergoing emergency CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27166963What 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.