ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Standardising infection control in CT intravenous contrast practice: an eDelphi study.
Article in Insights into 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDevelop consensus-based recommendations for infection, prevention and control (IPC) practices in CT regarding (1) guiding principles for Intravenous (IV) Contrast training and compliance and (2) best practices for the use of IV contrast. MATERIALS AND
methodsA modified e-Delphi study was conducted with a panel of experienced CT radiographers and nurses from healthcare settings across Australia. Nineteen statements were presented to participants who selected a response on a 5-point Likert scale from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' using an online survey. Participants were invited to provide justifications regarding their selected responses. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement, and any statement that fell below this benchmark was modified for subsequent rounds based on participants' comments.
resultsThree rounds were conducted, with the number of participants per round being 34, 26 and 24, respectively. Eighteen statements reached consensus, and pertained to guiding principles for IV contrast, sequencing IV contrast administration, single- and multi-use IV contrast administration systems and IPC considerations in the CT environment. Statements that failed to reach consensus (n = 1) or lost stability across subsequent rounds (n = 3) related to dripped contrast and connection/disconnection of the contrast tubing to the patient.
conclusionThis study established a set of eighteen IPC Guiding Principles and Best Practice statements for staff administering IV contrast in CT departments in the Australian healthcare setting. Findings underscore the importance of standardising IPC training and clearer communication of IPC policies. These results can inform policy updates and guide future education. KEY POINTS: Question: CT IPC practices vary, with no clear, relevant guidelines.
findingsEighteen consensus statements guide CT IPC practices for IV contrast administration. Expert-led consensus statements enhance CT IV contrast practice, supporting safer departmental procedures. Critical relevance statement: CT IV contrast administration practices vary across practitioners and departments; however, standardised guiding principles and best practice recommendations can support improved infection control for radiology departments, educators, and policymakers aiming to enhance infection control within diagnostic imaging.
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.