Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31203290›Full record

ArticleMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2020

Added Value of Contrast Medium in Whole-Body Hybrid Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison between Contrast-Enhanced and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Protocols.

Filiz Celebi, Emetullah Cindil, Dauren Sarsenov, Bulent Unalan, Cem Balcı

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Filiz CelebiDepartment of Radiology, Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, elbuken.filiz@gmail.com.
Emetullah CindilDepartment of Radiology, Gazi University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Dauren SarsenovDepartment of General Surgery, Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Bulent UnalanDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Cem BalcıDepartment of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Lerner School of Medicine, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital · TRGazi University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the diagnostic ability and time efficiency of contrast-enhanced (CE) whole body fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) protocol and non-CE (NCE) protocol. SUBJECTS AND

methodsNinety-three patients with known primary tumors underwent whole-body hybrid FDG PET/MRI during the follow-up of their malignancies with the use of NCE and CE protocols. The NCE PET/MRI protocol consisted of diffusion-weighted (b = 0 and 800 s/mm2) and T1-weighted Turbo Flash in the axial plane and T2-weighted HASTE sequence in the coronal planes (Σ = 25 min). The CE PET/MRI protocol was performed by acquiring axial serial CE 3D FS VIBE images in the upper abdomen, completing the whole body in the late phase in the axial plane (Σ = 30 min).

resultsThere was a statistically significant difference between the total number of lesions detected by the CE protocol (median 2, interquartile range (IQR) 0-14) and that detected by the NCE protocol (median 1, IQR 0-5; p < 0.001). More malignancies were detected in the abdomen (p < 0.001) and brain (p < 0.001) with the CE PET/MRI protocol, whereas no significant difference was present when comparing the 2 protocols in the detection of malignancies in the head and neck (p = 0.356), thorax (p = 0.09), lymph nodes (p = 0.196), and bone (p = 0.414).

conclusionThe CE FDG PET/MRI protocol enables fast and accurate detection of malignancies compared to the NCE FDG PET/MRI protocol, particularly in the upper abdomen and brain. Diagnostic ability and time efficiency can be increased with the proposed short CE protocol in place of the whole body PET/MRI protocol including both NCE and CE imaging sequences.

Indexed as

AdultContrast MediaFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPositron-Emission TomographyWhole Body ImagingContrast MediaContrast mediumFast protocolMalignancyPositron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID31203290
PMCPMC7024881
OpenAlexW2949161289

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.