ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Performance of a new natural oral contrast agent (LumiVision®) in dynamic MR swallowing.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visualization of deglutition and gastroesophageal reflux using real-time MRI: a standardized approach to image acquisition and assessment.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Not only manganese, but fruit component effects dictate the efficiency of fruit juice as an oral magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent.NMR in biomedicine · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate image quality by first use of LumiVision® in dynamic MR swallowing, a contrast medium consisting of biological substances versus a gadolinium-buttermilk mixture in patients who underwent Nissen fundoplication due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
methodsThe protocol of this retrospective study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. A hundred twenty-nine patients (146 examinations) underwent a dynamic MR swallowing study (at 1.5 T or 3.0 T) and received an oral contrast agent. Two readers evaluated the distention of the esophagus, contrast, and traceability of the bolus in a 3-point scale. A steady-state coherent sequence (B-FFE, TrueFISP) was used. The patients were divided into 3 different groups: 53 patients received gadolinium chelate (Dotarem®)-buttermilk mixture (GBM) in a dilution of 1:40 as an oral contrast agent; 44 patients received LumiVision® water mixture (LWM) in a dilution of 1:1 and 49 patients received LumiVision® (L) undiluted.
resultsGBM showed significantly better results in overall evaluation for both readers in contrast to LWM (p = .003, p = .002). L also reached significantly better results in overall evaluation than LWM in both readers (p = .004, p = .042). There was no significant difference in the overall evaluation between L and GBM (p = .914, p = .376).According to Landis and Koch, interobserver agreement was "substantial" (Cohen's kappa = 0.738) between both readers.
conclusionLumiVision® undiluted showed equal image quality compared to gadolinium-buttermilk mixture. The constellation of LumiVision® water mixture led to a clearly negative result in relation to the image quality compared to LumiVision® undiluted. Therefore, oral ingestion of LumiVision® undiluted is recommended for MR swallowing examinations. KEY POINTS: • LumiVision® undiluted shows significantly better image quality in comparison to LumiVision® diluted in oral application in swallowing MRI. • LumiVision® undiluted shows equal image quality in comparison to gadolinium-buttermilk mixture in oral application. • Oral ingestion of LumiVision® undiluted can replace gadolinium-buttermilk mixture in oral MR examinations.
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.