ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
A comparison of bolus track and test bolus computed tomography pulmonary angiography and the implications on pulmonary and aortic vessel enhancement, effective dose and suboptimal scan rate.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Specific Timing for Pulmonary CT Angiography: Human Validation of a Physiologically Derived Post-Trigger Delay Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sequential Helical-Axial-Helical Triple-Rule-Out CT Angiography: Technical Feasibility and Territory-Specific Image Quality in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Patient-specific timing acquisition for coronary CT angiography: A retrospective patient validation study.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Optimizing CT pulmonary angiography with patient-adaptive triggering-a novel approach for a "one-stop-shop" evaluation of pulmonary and aortic vasculature.European radiology · 2026Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBolus track and test bolus are the most commonly used contrast timing protocols to undertake computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). The aim of this study was to compare test bolus and bolus track contrast enhancement protocols in terms of enhancement of the pulmonary vessels and aorta, radiation dose and suboptimal scan rate to determine the optimal technique for CTPA.
methodsA total of 200 CTPA examinations (100 using each protocol) performed between January and February 2021 were assessed retrospectively. All scans were performed on a 2x128 Dual Source Siemens Drive Scanner. CT attenuation was measured in Hounsfield Units (HU), with measurements taken from the main pulmonary trunk, right pulmonary artery and left pulmonary artery, ascending and descending aorta. The mean effective dose was calculated from the dose-length product (DLP). The suboptimal scan rate was calculated as the percentage of examinations below 210HU.
resultsThe average HU of the pulmonary arteries was 358 HU ± SD 129.2 in the test bolus group and increased to 394 HU ± SD 133.9 in the bolus track group with a P value of ≤0.05. The average HU of the aorta was 235 HU ± SD 82.8 in the test bolus group and increased to 319 HU ± SD 91.8 in the bolus track group with a P value of <0.001. Although not statistically significant, the mean effective dose was reduced by 4.2% for the bolus track protocol (2.4 mSv vs. 2.5 mSv, P > 0.05). Fewer suboptimal scans were performed with the bolus track protocol (5 scans <210HU Bolus Track vs. 9 scans <210HU Test Bolus).
conclusionThe bolus track protocol results in increased enhancement of the pulmonary arteries and aorta, with the added benefits of a lower suboptimal scan rate and lower effective dose.
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.