Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28894889›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2018

Influence of contrast-enhanced ultrasound administration setups on microbubble enhancement: a focus on pediatric applications.

Michael R Kramer, Nishi Bhagat, Susan J Back, Laura Poznick, Flemming Forsberg, Kassa Darge, John R Eisenbrey

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michael R KramerSchool of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Nishi BhagatDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 132 South 10th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Susan J BackDepartment of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Laura PoznickDepartment of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Flemming ForsbergDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 132 South 10th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Kassa DargeDepartment of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
John R EisenbreyDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 132 South 10th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. John.Eisenbrey@jefferson.edu.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia · USThomas Jefferson University · USCase Western Reserve University · USTemple University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn pediatrics, contrast-enhanced ultrasound offers high-quality imaging with an excellent safety profile.

objectiveTo investigate the effects of varying intravenous administration setups on in vitro enhancement and concentration of two commercially available ultrasound contrast agents, taking into consideration potential pediatric applications. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe quantified in vitro enhancement using a flow phantom (ATS Laboratories, Bridgeport, CT) and Acuson S3000 ultrasound system (Siemens Healthineers, Mountain View, CA) with a 9L4 probe in Cadence pulse sequencing mode. We determined microbubble concentration with an LSRII flow cytometer (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA). We investigated Optison (GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ) and Lumason (Bracco, Geneva, Switzerland) ultrasound contrast agents. The ultrasound (US) contrast agent was injected via a 1 mL syringe and flushed with 5 mL of saline through a 22-gauge diffusion catheter (BD Medical, Franklin Lakes, NJ) with the following variations: in-line injection through a 3-way stopcock with and without a neutral displacement connector (ICU Medical, San Clemente, CA), perpendicular through a 3-way stopcock with and without a connector, and without a 3-way stopcock. We also conducted injections through a 22-gauge standard angiocatheter.

resultsInjection through the connector and perpendicular injection via the 3-way stopcock resulted in significant decreases in enhancement for both ultrasound contrast agents (P<0.0001). Injection through the connector resulted in significant decrease in concentration for Optison (P<0.05). Neither addition of the 3-way stopcock (P>0.24) nor use of a pediatric diffusion catheter (P>0.28) affected the enhancement.

conclusionUltrasound contrast agent enhancement depends on the administration route, although some effects appear to be specific to the ultrasound contrast agent used. To avoid loss of enhancement, neutral displacement connectors and perpendicular injection should be avoided.

Indexed as

AlbuminsCathetersContrast MediaEquipment DesignFluorocarbonsHumansImage EnhancementInjectionsMicrobubblesNeedlesPhantoms, ImagingUltrasonographyAlbuminsContrast MediaFluorocarbonsFS 069ChildrenContrastContrast-enhanced ultrasoundInjection techniquesIn vitroUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID28894889
OpenAlexW2754467064

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.