ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Accuracy of iodinated contrast and saline delivery using a piston-driven and a peristaltic power injector in CT-an in vitro study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of iodinated contrast media (ICM) and saline flush volumes delivered by a piston- and a peristaltic-based injector in an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeven clinical injection protocols, ranging from pediatric to bariatric indications and incorporating varying flow rates, ICM volumes, saline volumes, and dilution ratios, were tested. Identical prescriptions were programmed into a piston-based injector and a peristaltic-based injector. Injections were performed into vials. Calibration samples (5-20 mgI/mL) were scanned on a multi-slice CT scanner to generate a calibration curve relating CT number to iodine concentration. The saline test volume and combined ICM + saline flush volume were measured for each injection. CT numbers of mixtures were converted to iodine concentration using the calibration curve, and delivered ICM and saline volumes were calculated. Percent errors between expected and measured volumes were determined. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed statistical significance.
resultsFor the peristaltic-based injector, ICM volume error ranged from 4.0% to 10.0% and saline flush error from 0.6% to 9.2%. For the piston-based injector, ICM volume error ranged from 9.9% to 40.0% and saline flush error from 1.5% to 50.2%. Differences between expected and delivered volumes were statistically significant across protocols (p = 0.031/= 0.035), except for peristaltic saline flush protocols (Ped 12 mL (p = 0.094), Adult 170 mL (p = 0.156), and High Flow (p = 0.093)).
conclusionsBoth injectors delivered excess ICM while saline flush volumes showed variability. These findings underscore the importance of performance verification to ensure accurate and consistent contrast delivery in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: Question Automated injectors often delivered more contrast than expected. Findings Both systems often underdelivered saline with some instances of overdelivery. Relevance statement Unrecognized variability in contrast and saline delivery across different injection settings may affect enhancement consistency, contrast exposure, and diagnostic reliability. Broader injector performance evaluation across clinically used protocols and clinically simulated setups may improve CT practice.
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.