| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 32% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 10% |
| India | 2 | 6% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| Poland | 1 | 3% |
| Georgia | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 26% |
| Scientists | 6 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 35% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,126,392
of 25,494,370 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#57
of 2,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,515
of 343,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#3
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,494,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 343,939 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 95% of its contemporaries.