Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31197399›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2019

[When are contrast agents really needed? : Cross-sectional imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging].

G Layer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

G LayerZentralinstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Klinikum Ludwigshafen gGmbH, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland. guenter.layer@klilu.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

clinical issueThe intravenous administration of contrast agents increases the contrast between diverse tissues and vessels against their surroundings in both computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and has been generously used for years. There are only a few scientific publications that have systematically evaluated the impact of this contrast-enhancing technique over noncontrast enhancing techniques. RADIOLOGICAL STANDARD: According to these publications and our clinical experiences, there are far more indications to use non-contrast-enhancing techniques as they are used in clinical practice. The most important requirement to renounce the use of a contrast agent is sufficient clinical information and differentiated justified indication. The present review shows useful non-contrast-enhanced examination techniques for neuroradiology, musculoskeletal system, lymphatic system, and thorax, including the hearth, abdomen and breasts. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Good indications for non-contrast imaging are generally follow-ups. In cerebral related questions, like in traumatic or atraumatic emergencies, transient ischemic attacks, minor stroke diagnostic, dementia and in follow-ups of multiple sclerosis, there is usually no need for contrast agent. Examinations of the musculoskeletal systems and follow-up examinations of the lymphatic system can generally be done without a contrast agent. There is no major loss of value in CT and MRI scans of the thorax by examining without contrast. The value of using a contrast agent in the abdomen is far less than expected. Up to now use of a contrast agent is essential in evaluating questions related to vessels or angiomatous tissue and in breast MRI.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingStrokeTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaHumansRadiographyContrast MediaDiagnosisIndicationsIntravenous contrast mediumNon-enhanced examinationsPathological changes

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.