ArticleSA journal of radiology2022
An audit of the adequacy of contrast enhancement in CT pulmonary angiograms in a South African tertiary academic hospital setting.
Article in SA journal of radiology, 2022. 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, 1 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Undiagnosed pulmonary embolism carries high mortality and morbidity. Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) is the diagnostic method of choice for accurate diagnosis. Inadequate contrast opacification is the second most common cause of indeterminate CTPAs. Objectives: Audit the adequacy of CTPA contrast enhancement and determine whether inadequate enhancement is affected by the size and site of the intravenous cannula, flow rate, contrast volume, contrast leakage and day shift versus after hours services. Method: Retrospective and prospective audits of the adequacy of contrast enhancement of CTPAs at the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital were conducted using the Royal College of Radiologists guidelines (≤ 11% of studies with < 210 HU). Protocol variables were collected prospectively from questionnaires completed by radiographers performing the CTPAs. Adequate versus inadequate groups were analysed. Results: A total of 63 (retrospective) and 130 (prospective) patients were included with inadequate contrast enhancement rates of 19% (12/63) and 20.8% (27/130), respectively. The majority of CTPAs were performed during the day 56.2% (73/130) with a 20G cannula 66.2% (86/130) in the forearm 33.8% (44/130) injecting 100 mL - 120 mL contrast 43.1% (56/130) at 3 mL/s 63.1% (82/130). The median flow rate (3 mL/s) and contrast volume (80 mL) were identical in both adequate and inadequate groups, while the remaining variables showed no statistical difference. Conclusion: The rate of inadequately enhanced CTPAs in this study was high. The protocol variables did not have a significant influence on the rate of inadequate enhancement. Further research, particularly using flow rates > 4 mL/s, is required for protocol optimisation.
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.