Trial reportMedicine2026
Low concentration isotonic iodixanol on hepatic and portal veins imaging quality and renal function: A 320-detector CT dual-energy study.
Trial report in Medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of different concentrations of isotonic contrast agents on the quality of hepatic and portal vein imaging and their impact on patients' renal function remain unclear. This study aimed to assess whether lower concentrations of iodixanol yield high-quality imaging by comparing hepatic and portal vein imaging quality and evaluating renal function following dual-energy CT (DECT) scans.
methodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive either iodixanol at 270 mgI/mL (iodixanol 270 group, n = 50) or 320 mgI/mL (iodixanol 320 group, n = 50) and underwent DECT with energy-spectrum reconstruction. Quantitative and qualitative image quality parameters, as well as changes in renal function before and after scanning, were compared between the 2 groups.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in the contrast-to-noise ratio, signal-to-noise ratio of the main portal vein, and the computed tomography value of the hepatic vein between the 2 groups (P < .05). These parameters were superior in the iodixanol 320 group compared to the iodixanol 270 group. Qualitative evaluation scores for the portal and hepatic veins in the iodixanol 320 group were significantly higher than those in the iodixanol 270 group (P < .05). Postcontrast acute kidney injury incidence was higher in the iodixanol 320 group than in the iodixanol 270 group (20.5% vs 2.1%, P < .05), and this association remained significant after multivariable adjustment (adjusted odds ratio = 13.70, P = .002).
conclusionWith a fixed injection protocol, iodixanol 320 mgI/mL yielded higher venous enhancement, whereas iodixanol 270 mgI/mL provided diagnostically acceptable portal/hepatic venous image quality on DECT with a lower iodine load. After adjustment, 320 mgI/mL was associated with higher odds of postcontrast acute kidney injury; this safety signal requires confirmation in larger iodine-matched studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.