ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020
Impact of CT Injector Technology and Contrast Media Viscosity on Vascular Enhancement: Evaluation in a Circulation Phantom.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of iodinated contrast and saline delivery using a piston-driven and a peristaltic power injector in CT-an in vitro study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Comparing multi-use syringeless and conventional single-use dual-syringe injectors in contrast-enhanced CT: efficiency, cost, and technologist satisfaction.European radiology · 2026Article
- Critical but commonly neglected factors that affect contrast medium administration in CT.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Computed tomography image quality in patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma: intraindividual comparison of contrast agent concentrations.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Performance of Centargo: A Novel Piston-Based Injection System for High Throughput in CE CT.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Cardiothoracic CTA in Infants Referred for Aortic Arch Evaluation-Retrospective Comparison of Iomeprol 350, Ioversol 350, Iopromide 370 and Iodixanol 320.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of piston-based
methodsFour injectors were tested: MEDRAD
resultsExperiment I: Centargo provided the highest achievable IDRs with all tested contrast media (
conclusionThe tested piston-based injection systems combined with low viscosity contrast media provide higher achievable IDRs and higher peak vascular enhancement than the tested peristaltic-based injectors. With equivalent IDRs, Centargo provides higher peak vascular enhancement due to improved bolus shape. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper introduces a new parameter to compare expected performance among contrast media: the concentration/viscosity ratio. Additionally, it demonstrates previously unexplored impacts of bolus shape on vascular enhancement.
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.