Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28573550›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2017

Optimal injection method for long-range computed tomography angiography.

Aogu Yamaguchi, Tsukasa Sasaki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aogu YamaguchiDivision of Radiology, Departments of Medical Technology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Kita 14, Nishi 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan. aogu@huhp.hokudai.ac.jp.
Tsukasa SasakiDivision of Radiology, Departments of Medical Technology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Kita 14, Nishi 5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to obtain high-stable computed tomography (CT) values for CT angiography (CTA). We verified the optimal use of the new protocol for long-range scanning using a contrast material flow phantom (Ichikawa, CT imaging theory. Igaku syoin Publishing, Tokyo, 8; Awai et al., Am J Roentgenol 186(2):379-385, 1) to obtain high-stable CT values (Fig. 2). We have developed a novel contrast injection method called the stable line imaging protocol (SLIP). This method involved a gradual reduction in the rate of administration of the contrast medium, which was accompanied by simultaneous administration of saline to compensate for the resultant decrease in the rate of administration. A saline flush was further added after the contrast medium injection. The rate of administration of the saline flush was the same as that of the initial contrast medium. We injected a contrast medium from the injector into the flow phantom. The time-enhancement curve (TEC) data were obtained five times by changing the injection method, and the average CT values were determined. The maximum simulation of the aortic peak enhancement of TEC was defined as pTEC. The time required to keep the CT value more than 80% of the pTEC was defined as the time period of contrast enhancement (p80). The pTEC of a single injection was 295.7 ± 5.3 HU, while that of SLIP was 296.5 ± 2.3 HU; the two values did not differ significantly. The p80 of a single injection was 19.1 ± 0.2 s, while that of SLIP was 23.2 ± 0.4 s; p80 of SLIP was 18% longer than that of the single injection.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyInjectionsPhantoms, ImagingSignal-To-Noise RatioComputed tomography angiography (CTA)Computed tomography (CT)Contrast medium injection methodStable line imaging protocol (SLIP)Time-enhancement curve (TEC)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.