ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2016
Qualitative indices and enhancement rate of CT pulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: Comparison between test bolus and bolus-tracking methods.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A patient-specific timing protocol for improved CT pulmonary angiography.Research in diagnostic and interventional imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to assess the qualitative indices and enhancement rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism using Test bolus and Bolus-tracking techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-two patients with suspected pulmonary embolism that passed informed consent were randomly divided in the two groups. In each group, demographic characteristics, qualitative indices, and enhancement rate of CTPA were recorded.
resultsThe diagnostic result obtained in majority of the participants in the two groups (88.5 % in Test bolus group vs. 73.1% in the Bolus tracking group). In the case of quantitative variables, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups (P > 0.05). The only statistically significant difference between the two groups is average of "X-ray dose".
conclusionThe results of our study show that there is no statistically significant difference between the Bolus Tracking and Test Bolus techniques for producing more homogeneous enhancement.
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.