ArticleMedicine2017
Weight-based contrast administration in the computerized tomography evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism: Challenges in optimizing imaging quality.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation and Contrast Medium Dosage Optimization of Coronary CT Angiography While Combining Personalized Patient Protocol Technology and Automated Tube Voltage Selection Technology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A patient-informed approach to predict iodinated-contrast media enhancement in the liver.European journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Variation in aorta attenuation in contrast-enhanced CT and its implications for calcification thresholds.PloS one · 2022Article
- False-Negative Low Tube Voltage Coronary CT Angiography: High Intravascular Attenuation at Coronary CT Angiography Can Mask Calcified Plaques.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2019Article
- Assessment of pulmonary arterial enhancement on CT pulmonary angiography using a leg vein for contrast media administration.Medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compare individualized contrast protocol, or weight-based protocol, to standard methodology in evaluating acute pulmonary embolism.Retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing computed tomography angiography with standard contrast protocol (n = 50) or individualized protocol (n = 50). Computerized tomography images were assessed for vascular enhancement and image quality.Demographics were comparable, however, more patients in the individualized group were admitted to intensive care unit (48% vs 16%, P = 0.004). Vascular enhancement and image quality were also comparable, although individualized protocol had significantly fewer contrast and motion artifact limitations (28% vs 48%, P = 0.039). Fifteen percent decrease in intravenous contrast volume was identified in individualized group with no compromise in image quality.Individualized contrast protocol provided comparable vascular enhancement and image quality to the standard, yet with fewer limitations and lower intravenous contrast volume. Catheter-gauge flow rate restrictions resulting in inconsistent technologist exam execution were identified, supporting the need for further investigation of this 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.