OBJECTIVES: To determine whether positive oral contrast agents improve accuracy of abdominopelvic CT compared with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. METHODS: Literature was searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of abdominopelvic CT with positive oral contrast agents against imaging with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. Meta-analysis reviewed studies correlating CT findings of blunt abdominal injury with positive and without oral contrast agents against surgical, autopsy or clinical outcome allowing derivation of pooled sensitivity and specificity. Systematic review was performed on studies with common design and reference standard. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised 15 studies comparing CT with positive and without oral contrast agents. Meta-analysis of five studies from group 1 provided no difference in sensitivity or specificity between CT with positive or without oral contrast agents. Group 2 comprised 17 studies comparing CT with positive and neutral or negative oral contrast agents. Systematic review of 12 studies from group 2 indicated that neutral or negative oral contrasts were as effective as positive oral contrast agents for bowel visualisation. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in accuracy between CT performed with positive oral contrast agents or with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. KEY POINTS: • There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with or without oral contrast agent. • There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with Gastrografin or water. • Omission of oral contrast, utilising neutral or negative oral contrast agent saves time, costs and decreases risk of aspiration.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether positive oral contrast agents improve accuracy of abdominopelvic CT compared with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. METHODS: Literature was searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of abdominopelvic CT with positive oral contrast agents against imaging with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. Meta-analysis reviewed studies correlating CT findings of blunt abdominal injury with positive and without oral contrast agents against surgical, autopsy or clinical outcome allowing derivation of pooled sensitivity and specificity. Systematic review was performed on studies with common design and reference standard. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised 15 studies comparing CT with positive and without oral contrast agents. Meta-analysis of five studies from group 1 provided no difference in sensitivity or specificity between CT with positive or without oral contrast agents. Group 2 comprised 17 studies comparing CT with positive and neutral or negative oral contrast agents. Systematic review of 12 studies from group 2 indicated that neutral or negative oral contrasts were as effective as positive oral contrast agents for bowel visualisation. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in accuracy between CT performed with positive oral contrast agents or with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. KEY POINTS: • There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with or without oral contrast agent. • There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with Gastrografin or water. • Omission of oral contrast, utilising neutral or negative oral contrast agent saves time, costs and decreases risk of aspiration.
Authors: Alec J Megibow; James S Babb; Elizabeth M Hecht; Jennie J Cho; Carmela Houston; Michael M Boruch; Archie B Williams Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dushyant V Sahani; Kartik S Jhaveri; Roy V D'souza; Jose C Varghese; Elkan Halpern; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Peter F Hahn; Sanjay Saini Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Mark J Halsted; John M Racadio; Kathleen H Emery; Peter Kreymerman; Stacy A Poe; Judy A Bean; Lane F Donnelly Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Francesco Iaselli; Maria Antonietta Mazzei; Cristina Firetto; Domenico D'Elia; Nevada Cioffi Squitieri; Pietro Raimondo Biondetti; Francesco Maria Danza; Mariano Scaglione Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Douglas H Sheafor; Mark D Kovacs; Philip Burchett; Melissa M Picard; Brenton Davis; Andrew D Hardie Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Federico Coccolini; Leslie Kobayashi; Yoram Kluger; Ernest E Moore; Luca Ansaloni; Walt Biffl; Ari Leppaniemi; Goran Augustin; Viktor Reva; Imitiaz Wani; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Fikri Abu-Zidan; Enrico Cicuttin; Gustavo Pereira Fraga; Carlos Ordonez; Emmanuil Pikoulis; Maria Grazia Sibilla; Ron Maier; Yosuke Matsumura; Peter T Masiakos; Vladimir Khokha; Alain Chichom Mefire; Rao Ivatury; Francesco Favi; Vassil Manchev; Massimo Sartelli; Fernando Machado; Junichi Matsumoto; Massimo Chiarugi; Catherine Arvieux; Fausto Catena; Raul Coimbra Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 5.469