ArticleMedicine2021
Advantages of CT nano-contrast agent in tumor diagnosis: A retrospective study.
Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThe purpose of this retrospective study was to explore the advantages of computed tomography (CT) nano-contrast agent in tumor diagnosis.A total of 100 patients with malignant tumor who were diagnosed in Shaanxi Province Public Hospital between January 2018 and January 2019 were included in this retrospective study. They were randomly divided into observation and control groups with 50 patients in each group. The patients in the observation group used new type of nano-contrast agent for examination, and the patients in the control group used traditional iohexol contrast agent for examination. The detection rate, misdiagnosis rate, and incidence of adverse reactions were observed. In addition, single photon emission computed tomography or CT scan was performed on patients to observe the radioactive concentration.The detection rate was 100% in the observation group and 84% in the control group, and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant (χ2 = 8.763, P = .001). The incidence of adverse reactions was 2% in the observation group and 30% in the control group, and the difference between the 2 groups was significantly different (χ2 = 12.683, P = .000). The radioactive concentration in the observation group was markedly higher than that in the control group (t = 19.692, P = .001).The use of CT nano-contrast agent in tumor diagnosis had higher detection rate of tumor and radioactive concentration, and it had lower misdiagnosis rate and adverse reaction rate than traditional iohexol contrast agent.
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.