ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
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.
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.
- Research and development of novel embolization materials and study on their feasibility of preventing T2EL after EVAR abdominal aortic aneurysm.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.