Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35612906›Full record

ReviewTexas Heart Institute journal2022

Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents: Updates and Answers to Typical Questions Regarding Gadolinium Use.

Benjamin Y C Cheong, James M Wilson, Ourania A Preventza, Raja Muthupillai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Metabolic Gadolinium Labeling ofBiomaterials research · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Simultaneous TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Development of Ln(III) Derivatives asInorganic chemistry · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Benjamin Y C CheongDepartment of Cardiology, Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas.
James M WilsonHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas.
Ourania A PreventzaDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Raja MuthupillaiDepartment of Cardiovascular Radiology, Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gadolinium-based contrast agents have expanded the diagnostic usefulness and capability of magnetic resonance imaging. Despite their highly favorable safety profile, these agents have been associated with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in a small number of patients who have advanced kidney disease. Recently, trace amounts of gadolinium deposition in the brain and other organs have been reported after contrast exposure, even in patients with normal renal function. In this review, we provide a brief overview of recent updates and discuss typical clinical situations related to the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents.

Indexed as

Nephrogenic Fibrosing DermopathyRenal InsufficiencyContrast MediaGadoliniumHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingContrast MediaGadoliniumAcute kidney injury/complicationsgadolinium/administration & dosage/adverse effectsimage enhancement/methodskidney/diagnostic imagingkidney failure, chronic/complicationsmagnetic resonance imagingnephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy/chemically induced/prevention & controlpractice guidelines as topicrenal dialysisrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID35612906
PMCPMC9242635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.