ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024
Comparative Evaluation of Lower Gadolinium Doses for MR Imaging of Meningiomas: How Low Can We Go?
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Rationales for Non-standard GBCA Dosing-Low?-High?-When? and Why?: A Literature-based Study.Investigative radiology · 2026Pooled it
- ESR Essentials: gadolinium-wise MRI-practice recommendations by the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology.European radiology · 2025Guideline
- Recommendations on the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents in the diagnosis and monitoring of common adult intracranial tumours.European radiology · 2025Review
- Regarding "Comparative Evaluation of Lower Gadolinium Doses for MR Imaging of Meningiomas: How Low Can We Go?"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeGadolinium-based contrast agents are widely used for meningioma imaging; however, concerns exist regarding their side effects, cost, and environmental impact. At the standard gadolinium dose, most meningiomas show avid contrast enhancement, suggesting that administering a smaller dose may be feasible. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a lower gadolinium dose on the differentiation between meningiomas and adjacent intracranial tissues. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred eight patients with presumed or confirmed meningiomas who underwent a brain MRI at multiple doses of gadolinium were included in the study. The patients' MRIs were categorized into 3 groups based on the gadolinium dose administered: micro (approximately 25% of the standard dose), low (approximately 62% of the standard dose), and standard dose. Multireader qualitative visual assessment and quantitative relative signal differences calculations were performed to evaluate tumor differentiation from the cortex and from the dural venous sinus. The relative signal differences for each dose were analyzed by using ANOVA for quantitative assessment and the McNemar test for qualitative assessment. Additionally, noninferiority testing was used to compare the low and micro doses to the standard dose.
resultsDecreasing the gadolinium dose to a low dose or micro dose resulted in a statistically significant decrease in signal difference between the tumor and the adjacent brain tissue (
conclusionsReducing the gadolinium dose to 62% of the standard level still allows for sufficient visual delineation of meningiomas from surrounding tissues. However, further reduction to 25% substantially compromises the ability to distinguish the tumor from adjacent structures and is, therefore, not advisable.
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.