↓ Skip to main content

Revisiting the risks of MRI with Gadolinium based contrast agents—review of literature and guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
Title
Revisiting the risks of MRI with Gadolinium based contrast agents—review of literature and guidelines
Published in
Insights into Imaging, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13244-015-0420-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aurang Z. Khawaja, Deirdre B. Cassidy, Julien Al Shakarchi, Damian G. McGrogan, Nicholas G. Inston, Robert G. Jones

Abstract

Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA) have been linked to the occurrence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in renal impaired patients. The exact interaction between the various different available formulations and occurrence of NSF is not completely understood, but has been postulated. This association has triggered public health advisory bodies to issue guidelines and best practice recommendations on its use. As a result, the reported incidence of NSF, as well as the published use of GBCA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in renal impairment, has seen a decline. Understanding of the events that led to these recommendations can increase clinical awareness and the implications of their usage. We present a review of published literature and a brief overview of practice recommendations, guidelines and manuals on contrast safety to aide everyday imaging practice. • Low risk gadolinium based contrast agents should be the choice in renal insufficiency. • Higher doses have been linked to NSF development. Doses should be as low as possible. • Clear documentation of date, dose and type of formulation used should be noted. • Post-scan dialysis should be arranged as soon as possible and feasible. • Pre- existing inflammatory state is a risk factor; liver insufficiency is not a contraindication.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 212 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 16%
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Master 23 11%
Other 23 11%
Other 45 21%
Unknown 38 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 33%
Chemistry 24 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Engineering 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 45 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,172,222
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#183
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,457
of 268,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.