ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Performance of Centargo: A Novel Piston-Based Injection System for High Throughput in CE CT.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and Performance of OptiVantage, a CT Contrast Media Injector, in Multi-Patient Mode.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Trial
- Reducing contrast media dosage for pulmonary embolism CTPA in PCD-CT: a comparative study of EID-CT and PCD-CT in the era of individualized protocolling.European radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison Between Weight-Based Variable-Voltage and Fixed Volume-Voltage Protocols in Cancer Surveillance Computed Tomography.Journal of computer assisted tomographyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare an investigational device (MEDRAD Patients and Methods: A total of 425 patients at two sites were enrolled; 198 patients in phase one, a randomized study (98 Stellant and 100 Centargo). The second observational phase included 227 patients who were injected with Centargo. Phase one recorded times for setup, disassembly, and patient changeovers. Demographic data, subjective image quality, and injection parameters were collected. Phase two assessed usability via a questionnaire provided to all end-users of both systems (radiographers). Results: Patient changeover times were statistically significantly faster with Centargo (15.4s ± 8.7s vs 53.7s ± 19.6s, p < 0.001). Centargo day-setup times were similar to Stellant (138.1s ± 92s vs 151.8s ± 30.6s, p = 0.33) and end-of-day-disassembly times were significantly slower (60.6s ± 27s vs 17.1s ± 12.9s, p < 0.001). Based on four different scenarios modelling patient throughput, the projected time savings with Centargo over Stellant was 40-63%, with the highest efficiency improvements for higher throughputs and the use of larger contrast medium bottles. Both Centargo and Stellant usability averaged between "Very Easy" and "Easy" in all responses to the questionnaire. There were no instances of interrupted injections due to communication loss or detected air and no insufficient images due to injector performance. No safety issues were identified. Conclusion: Centargo was able to demonstrate improved efficiency as compared to Stellant while maintaining injector performance and high usability scores.
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.