ArticleNeurointervention2020
Low-Dose Fluoroscopy Protocol for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography.
Article in Neurointervention, 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.
- Radiation Dose Reduction in Mechanical Thrombectomy: Single Versus Dual-Operator Approach.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Striving to Improve Image Quality and Minimize Radiation Dose in Neurointerventional Procedures.Neurointervention · 2025Article
- Reduction of Radiation Dose to Eye Lens in Cerebral 3D Rotational Angiography Using Head Off-Centering by Table Height Adjustment: A Prospective Study.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Comparing Radiation Dose of Cerebral Angiography Using Conventional and High kV Techniques: A Retrospective Study on Intracranial Aneurysm Patients and a Phantom Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Feasibility of low-dose digital subtraction angiography protocols for the endovascular treatment of intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas.Neuroradiology · 2021Article
- Recent Radiation Reduction Strategies for Neurointerventionists.Neurointervention · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe applied a low-dose fluoroscopic protocol in routine diagnostic cerebral angiography and evaluated the feasibility of the protocol. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed a total of 60 patients who underwent diagnostic cerebral angiography for various neurovascular diseases from September to November 2019. Routine protocols were used for patients in the first phase and low-dose protocols in the second phase. We compared radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, and complications between groups.
resultsAge, diseases, and operators were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean fluoroscopy dose significantly decreased by 52% in the low-dose group (3.09 vs. 6.38 Gy·cm2 ); however, the total dose was not significantly different between the two groups (34.07 vs. 33.70 Gy·cm2 ). The total fluoroscopic time was slightly longer in the low-dose group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.2. vs. 12.5 minutes). In all patients, angiography was successfully performed without complications.
conclusionThe low-dose fluoroscopy protocol is feasible to apply for diagnostic cerebral angiography in that this protocol could significantly reduce the fluoroscopic dose.
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.