Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40384707›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025

Jiaywei Tsauo, Qicong Mai, Qi Wang, Qing Gou, Feng Shi, Zhiqiang Mo, Jing Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Jiaywei TsauoDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qicong MaiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qi WangDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qing GouDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Feng ShiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiqiang MoDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jing ZhangDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The second-generation peripheral hydrogel coils were recently introduced. However, it remains unclear how effectively these coil packs compare to fibered and bare coils, and whether they are prone to hydrogel dislodgment. The purpose of this study was to compare the packing densities of second-generation peripheral hydrogel coils with fibered and bare coils and to determine their susceptibility to hydrogel dislodgment. Methods: Twelve second-generation peripheral hydrogel coils, 12 fibered coils, and 12 bare coils were each inserted into a flow model under fluoroscopy. Each type included three coils of 0.018-inch with 4-mm and 6-mm diameters, and three of 0.035-inch with 6-mm and 8-mm diameters. Packing densities were calculated and compared for each specification. Additionally, hydrogel dislodgment in the flow model was analyzed over a 28-day period. Results: Bare coils demonstrated significantly higher packing densities compared to hydrogel coils (0.018-inch 4-mm: P=0.013; 0.018-inch 6-mm: P=0.009; 0.035-inch 6-mm: P=0.013; 0.035-inch 8-mm: P<0.001) and fibered coils (0.018-inch 4-mm: P=0.005; 0.018-inch 6-mm: P=0.015; 0.035-inch 6-mm: P=0.028; 0.035-inch 8-mm: P<0.001). Hydrogel coils did not significantly differ from fibered coils (0.018-inch 4-mm: P=0.627; 0.018-inch 6-mm: P=0.859; 0.035-inch 6-mm: P=0.070), except for the 0.035-inch 6-mm coils, where their packing density was significantly lower (P=0.006). Over 28 days, 206.7±45.1 hydrogel fragments dislodged from the 0.018-inch 4-mm coils, 178.7±37.1 from the 0.018-inch 6-mm coils, 211.0±27.1 from the 0.035-inch 6-mm coils, and 211.0±27.1 from the 0.035-inch 8-mm coils. Conclusions: Second-generation peripheral hydrogel coils did not demonstrate superior packing densities compared to fibered and bare coils and may be susceptible to hydrogel dislodgment.

Indexed as

arteriesembolization, therapeutichydrogelsVascular diseasesveins

Identifiers

PMID40384707
PMCPMC12084740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.