↓ Skip to main content

Do we need gadolinium-based contrast medium for brain magnetic resonance imaging in children?

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 1,238)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Do we need gadolinium-based contrast medium for brain magnetic resonance imaging in children?
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00247-017-3999-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis Dünger, Matthias Krause, Daniel Gräfe, Andreas Merkenschlager, Christian Roth, Ina Sorge

Abstract

Brain imaging is the most common examination in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), often combined with the use of a gadolinium-based contrast medium. The application of gadolinium-based contrast medium poses some risk. There is limited evidence of the benefits of contrast medium in pediatric brain imaging. To assess the diagnostic gain of contrast-enhanced sequences in brain MRI when the unenhanced sequences are normal. We retrospectively assessed 6,683 brain MR examinations using contrast medium in children younger than 16 years in the pediatric radiology department of the University Hospital Leipzig to determine whether contrast-enhanced sequences delivered additional, clinically relevant information to pre-contrast sequences. All examinations were executed using a 1.5-T or a 3-T system. In 8 of 3,003 (95% confidence interval 0.12-0.52%) unenhanced normal brain examinations, a relevant additional finding was detected when contrast medium was administered. Contrast enhancement led to a change in diagnosis in only one of these cases. Children with a normal pre-contrast brain MRI rarely benefit from contrast medium application. Comparing these results to the risks and disadvantages of a routine gadolinium application, there is substantiated numerical evidence for avoiding routine administration of gadolinium in a pre-contrast normal MRI examination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Unspecified 2 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Chemistry 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 20 May 2019.
All research outputs
#713,625
of 13,385,708 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#12
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,294
of 269,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,385,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 269,234 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.