Trial reportJournal of radiation research2019
Pilot clinical study of ascorbic acid treatment in cardiac catheterization.
Trial report in Journal of radiation research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Guideline
- Article
- Space Radiation Biology for "Living in Space".BioMed research international · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical radiodiagnosis and radiotherapy sometimes induce tissue damage and/or increase the risk of cancer in patients. However, in radiodiagnosis, a reduction in the exposure dose causes a blockier image that is not acceptable for diagnosis. Approximately 70% of DNA damage is induced via reactive oxygen species and/or radicals created during X-ray irradiation. Therefore, treatment with anti-oxidants and/or radical scavengers is considered to be effective in achieving a good balance between image quality and damage. However, few studies have examined the effect of using radical scavengers to reduce radiation damage in the clinical setting. In this study, we administrated 20 mg/kg ascorbic acid (AA) to patients before cardiac catheterization (CC) for diagnostic purposes. We analyzed changes in the number of phosphorylated H2AX (γH2AX) foci (a marker of DNA double-strand breaks) in lymphocytes, red blood cell glutathione levels, blood cell counts, and biochemical parameters. Unfortunately, we did not find satisfactory evidence to show that AA treatment reduces γH2AX foci formation immediately after CC. AA treatment did, however, cause a higher reduced/oxidized glutathione ratio than in the control arm immediately after CC. This is a preliminary study, but this result suggests that reducing radiation damage in clinical practice can be achieved using a biological approach.
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.