ArticleCureus2025
Comparing Peristaltic and Direct-Drive Contrast Injection Systems for Thoracic Computed Tomography (CT): Effects on Dose, Image Quality, and Pathology.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy of iodinated contrast and saline delivery using a piston-driven and a peristaltic power injector in CT-an in vitro study.European radiology experimental · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction To compare thoracic vasculature opacification between the direct-drive and the peristaltic drive contrast injection systems and the effect on quantitative and qualitative image quality during computed tomography. Method A retrospective chart review of 88 patients who underwent chest computed tomography (CT) following a direct-drive injector before 2016 (Group A) or a peristaltic injector after 2016 (Group B). Both protocols employed 80mL of iodinated contrast media volume. Quantitative measurements of the thoracic vascular opacification, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), effective radiation dose, and arterial venous contrast ratio (AVCR) for each vessel were computed and compared. The measured values of vascular opacification, CNR, and dose length product (DLP) were assessed utilizing paired t-test and Pearson's correlation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC), visual grading characteristics (VGC), and Cohen's kappa methodology were measured. Results There was no significant difference in the mean opacification of the chest vasculature (p > 0.05). The CNR in Group B was significantly lower than in Group A (p < 0.05) except for the brachiocephalic artery, proximal descending aorta, and the right pulmonary artery. Arterial venous contrast ratio at all anatomic levels demonstrated no statistical significance between groups. There were no differences in ROC, VGC, or kappa values between groups. Conclusion When comparing two contrast media injection systems in chest CT, there was no qualitative difference in image quality or pathology detection. However, quantitatively, direct-drive injectors provided higher CNR. Direct-drive contrast injectors also provided a superior quantitative image quality of chest vasculature compared to peristaltic injectors.
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.