ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Comparing multi-use syringeless and conventional single-use dual-syringe injectors in contrast-enhanced CT: efficiency, cost, and technologist satisfaction.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Reduction of iodinated contrast waste, cost, and greenhouse gas emissions using imaging bulk packaging in a pediatric hospital.Pediatric 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the operational efficiency, including performance, contrast media (CM) utilization, and technologist satisfaction between a multi-use syringeless power injector (MU-SPI) and a conventional single-use dual-syringe power injector (SU-DSPI). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, we prospectively recorded randomly selected cases from the first week of the caseload to document equipment setup/release times, including 22 patients (mean age 59) using MU-SPI and 30 patients (mean age 60) using SU-DSPI. In addition, the quality of contrast enhancement was evaluated using 51 randomly selected paired cases where subjects had the same CT study performed with both MU-SPI and SU-DSPI. Finally, we retrospectively recorded unavoidable CM wastage in 688 SU-DSPI cases (one missing). Overall, the healthcare system recorded 9304 cases (mean age, 52 years ± 15; 4532 men) using MU-SPI and 689 cases (mean age, 53 years ± 16; 354 men) using SU-DSPI in the study period from July 2021 to March 2022. Statistical analyses were performed using t-tests, Fisher's exact test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and multivariate linear regression models.
resultsMean injector preparation time per examination was significantly lower for MU-SPI [51.0 (SD: 26.5) seconds] versus SU-DSPI [198.8 (SD: 26.4) seconds] (p < 0.001). SU-DSPI had unavoidable CM wastage of 24.6 (SD: 16.3) mL per exam. Contrast quality showed no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.5). Costs were lower with MU-SPI ($21.70 vs. $25.00). Finally, technologists rated the MU-SPI as having better performance compared to SU-DSPI (p = 0.027).
conclusionMU-SPI significantly enhances operational efficiency and reduces costs with comparable image quality, improving technologist satisfaction. KEY POINTS: Question Evaluating how multi-use syringeless power injectors improve CT workflow efficiency and resource utilization amid increasing clinical demand for contrast-enhanced CT examinations. Findings The syringeless injector reduced preparation time, minimized contrast wastage, improved technologist satisfaction, and lowered consumable costs compared with the dual-syringe injector, without compromising image quality. Clinical relevance Implementing multi-use syringeless power injectors can streamline CT workflow and reduce costs. The saved time may enhance patient interaction and preparation, while improved efficiency and lower consumable expenses support overall CT department productivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41307663What 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.