ArticleContrast media & molecular imaging2017
Analytical Interference by Contrast Agents in Biochemical Assays.
Article in Contrast media & molecular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analytical interference of intravascular contrast agents with clinical laboratory tests: a joint guideline by the ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee and the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee.European radiology · 2024Guideline
- Iodinated Contrast Media in Oncologic CT: A Narrative Review of Safety, Risk Stratification, and Practical Considerations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A comparison of sequential density ultracentrifugation and density gradient ultracentrifugation for the proteomic analysis of high-density lipoprotein.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Prognosis for SAH Consistent with Redox Imbalance and Lipid Peroxidation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Effect of Iodinated Contrast Media on Serum Electrolyte Concentrations in Patients Undergoing Routine Contrast Computed Tomography Scan Procedure.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
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
Objective: To provide a clinically relevant overview of the analytical interference by contrast agents (CA) in laboratory blood test measurements. Materials and Methods: The effects of five CAs, gadobutrol, gadoterate meglumine, gadoxetate disodium, iodixanol, and iomeprol, were studied on the 29 most frequently performed biochemical assays. One-day-old plasma, serum, and whole blood were spiked with doses of each agent such that the gadolinium agents and the iodine agents reached concentrations of 0.5 mM and 12 mg iodine/mL, respectively. Subsequently, 12 assays were reexamined using 1/2 and 1/4 of these CA concentrations. The results were assessed statistically by a paired Student's Results: Iodixanol produced a negative interference on the bicarbonate ( Conclusion: CAs cause analytical interference. Attention should be given to the above-mentioned analyte-CA combinations when assessing laboratory blood test results obtained after CA administration.
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.