ReviewJournal of imaging2026
Iodinated Contrast Media Dose Protocols for Computed Tomography Investigations of the Abdomen: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
While several dosing protocols for iodinated contrast media (ICM) exist, a consensus strategy for optimising the physical imaging signal in abdominal CT is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the performance of individualised dosing protocols, specifically focusing on technical signal optimisation, clinical safety, potential material savings, and environmental sustainability. Electronic databases (Cochrane, Embase, Medline) were searched up to January 2026. Systematic synthesis of 23 studies (11,680 participants) compared protocols based on lean body weight (LBW), total body weight (TBW), fixed volume (FV) and software-assisted dosing. Meta-analyses assessed volume optimisation and hepatic enhancement, with evidence certainty evaluated via the GRADE framework. TBW-based dosing significantly reduced contrast volume by -8.74 mL compared to FV protocols (
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.