ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2022
Do We Need Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents for Routine MRI Surveillance of Unoperated Pituitary Macroadenoma?
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveying Current Practices in the Use of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents for Routine Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Isolated Growth Hormone Deficiency among US Pediatric Endocrinologists.Hormone research in paediatrics · 2026Article
- Recommendations on the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents in the diagnosis and monitoring of common adult intracranial tumours.European radiology · 2025Review
- Establishment of a deep-learning-assisted recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma detecting simultaneous tactic (DARNDEST) with high cost-effectiveness based on magnetic resonance images: a multicenter study in an endemic area.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Safe and optimized use of gadolinium-based contrast agents in neuroimaging.European radiology · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe use of gadolinium-based contrast agents contributes to the cost of MR imaging and prolongs image-acquisition time. There are also recent concerns regarding gadolinium deposition, particularly in patients who require frequent follow-up MRIs. The purpose of this study was to assess whether gadolinium-based contrast agents are needed during MR imaging follow-up for unoperated pituitary macroadenoma. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 105 patients with unoperated pituitary macroadenoma who underwent follow-up MR imaging of the sella were included in this retrospective study. The craniocaudal dimension, cavernous sinus invasion grading, and optic pathway compression were assessed independently on coronal T2WI and compared with coronal T1-weighted images with gadolinium-based contrast agents (T1 postcontrast images). The agreement between the T2WI and T1 postcontrast images for the craniocaudal dimension was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient; for the cavernous sinus invasion and optic pathway compression, it was assessed using κ statistics.
resultsThere was excellent agreement for the craniocaudal dimensions between T2WI and T1 postcontrast images (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96,
conclusionsMR imaging of the sella without the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents could potentially be considered for the follow-up of unoperated pituitary macroadenomas. This choice can reduce the MR imaging examination cost and acquisition time and avoids potential adverse effects of gadolinium-based contrast agents.
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.