ReviewCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Angiography Protocol Optimization in Peripheral and Visceral Interventions.
Review in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Established cone-beam CT angiography protocols exist for neurointerventional, hepatic, and prostatic artery applications, but no widely accepted acquisition framework addresses renal embolization, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, pulmonary vascular intervention, or below-the-knee peripheral disease. This narrative review searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through May 2025 for acquisition parameters and contrast protocols in these territories. Six interdependent variables (injection rate, contrast concentration, volume, scan delay, catheter position, and hemodynamics) govern image quality and must be optimized jointly. Territory-specific parameters are synthesized, and radiation considerations are addressed, with emphasis on total procedural exposure and on whether cone-beam acquisitions replace, rather than simply add to, other angiographic acquisitions.Level of Evidence Level 5. Narrative review of published literature without formal quality assessment or meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42811135What 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.