Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31848742›Full record

GuidelineEuropean radiology2020

Imaging protocols for CT urography: results of a consensus conference from the French Society of Genitourinary Imaging.

Raphaële Renard-Penna, Laurence Rocher, Catherine Roy, Marc André, Marie-France Bellin, Isabelle Boulay, David Eiss, Nicolas Girouin, Nicolas Grenier, Olivier Hélénon and 11 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Making sense of the CT Urogram.European radiology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Raphaële Renard-PennaAcademic Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. raphaele.renardpenna@psl.aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8484-4590
Laurence RocherDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Sud, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Catherine RoyDepartment of Radiology B, CHU de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.
Marc AndréDepartment of Radiology, Hôpital Européen, Marseille, France.
Marie-France BellinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Sud, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Isabelle BoulayDepartment of Radiology, Fondation Hôpital Saint Joseph, Paris, France.
David EissDepartment of Adult Radiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris, France.
Nicolas GirouinNorimagerie, Caluire et Cuire, France.
Nicolas GrenierDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Adult Imaging, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Olivier HélénonDepartment of Adult Radiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris, France.
Jean-François LaprayCentre d'Imagerie Créqui, Lyon, France.
Arnaud LefèvreCentre d'Imagerie Médicale Tourville, Paris, France.
Xavier MatillonDepartment of Urology and Transplantation, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Jean-Michel MénagerCentre d'Imagerie des Gratte-Ciel, Villeurbanne, France.
Ingrid MilletDepartment of Radiology, Hôpital Lapeyronie, Montpellier, France.
Sébastien RonzeImagerie médicale Val d'Ouest Charcot (IMVOC), Ecully, France.
Thomas SanzaloneDepartment of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier de Valence, Valence, France.
Jean TourniaireDepartment of Radiology, Clinique Rhône Durance, Avignon, France.
Serge BrunelleDepartment of Radiology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Olivier RouvièreFaculté de médecine Lyon Est, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
“French Society of Genitourinary Imaging Consensus group”

Funding

Société d'Imagerie Génito-Urinaire. N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop technical guidelines for computed tomography urography.

methodsThe French Society of Genitourinary Imaging organised a Delphi consensus conference with a two-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face meeting. Consensus was strictly defined using a priori criteria.

resultsForty-two expert uro-radiologists completed both survey rounds with no attrition between the rounds. Ninety-six (70%) of the initial 138 statements of the questionnaire achieved final consensus. An intravenous injection of 20 mg of furosemide before iodinated contrast medium injection was judged mandatory. Improving the quality of excretory phase imaging through oral or intravenous hydration of the patient or through the use of an abdominal compression device was not deemed necessary. The patient should be imaged in the supine position and placed in the prone position only at the radiologist's request. The choice between single-bolus and split-bolus protocols depends on the context, but split-bolus protocols should be favoured whenever possible to decrease patient irradiation. Repeated single-slice test acquisitions should not be performed to decide of the timing of excretory phase imaging; instead, excretory phase imaging should be performed 7 min after the injection of the contrast medium. The optimal combination of unenhanced, corticomedullary phase and nephrographic phase imaging depends on the context; suggestions of protocols are provided for eight different clinical situations.

conclusionThis expert-based consensus conference provides recommendations to standardise the imaging protocol for computed tomography urography. KEY POINTS: • To improve excretory phase imaging, an intravenous injection of furosemide should be performed before the injection of iodinated contrast medium. • Systematic oral or intravenous hydration is not necessary to improve excretory phase imaging. • The choice between single-bolus and split-bolus protocols depends on the context, but split-bolus protocols should be favoured whenever possible to decrease patient irradiation.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaDelphi TechniqueDiureticsFurosemideHumansInjections, IntravenousTomography, X-Ray ComputedUrographyContrast MediaDiureticsFurosemideGuidelinesHaematuriaSpiral computedTomographyUrography

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.