ArticleInvestigative radiology2018
Accuracy and Repeatability of Automated Injector Versus Manual Administration of an MRI Contrast Agent-Results of a Laboratory Study.
Article in Investigative radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Mechanism of Postpartum Cognitive Dysfunction in a Preeclampsia Rat Model via Multimodal Imaging.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026Article
- [Expert consensus on overall standardized management of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI examinations (version 2026)].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026Article
- Tailored 3D Lattice Microstructures for Enhanced Functionality in Blood-Gas Exchange.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review.Insights into imaging · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare flow rates over time and the deviations from the target flow rate of a magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent achieved by an automated injector versus manual injection. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this laboratory study, the magnetic resonance contrast agent gadobutrol was repeatedly injected by an injector and by 10 experienced technologists. Six scenarios with 2 different target flow rates (1 and 5 mL/s), 2 different contrast volumes (10 and 20 mL), and 2 different intravenous (IV) catheters (22 gauge and 20 gauge) were tested. The flow rates over time were recorded. The target variable was the average absolute deviation and average absolute percentage deviation from the target flow rate.
resultsThe flow rates over time achieved by an injector were almost identical. Slight deviations from the target flow rate occurred during ramp-up and ramp-down only. Those of manual injection showed high variability over the whole course of the injection. In the 1 mL/s scenarios, the injector deviated from the target flow rate by 0.06 mL/s or less (≤6%) and in the 5 mL/s scenarios by 1.02 mL/s or less (<20%). For the manual injections at the same flow rates, these figures were 0.35 mL/s or less (≤35%) and 3.1 mL/s or less (≤62%).
conclusionsInjector administration of a magnetic resonance contrast agent minimally deviated from the target flow rate, whereas manual injection varied widely. Injector administration is more accurate and repeatable.
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.