Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients
Objectives To determine patient acceptability of barium enema (BE) or CT colonography (CTC). Methods After ethical approval, 921 consenting patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned and completed either BE ( N = 606) or CTC ( N = 315) received a question...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2011-10, Vol.21 (10), p.2046-2055 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2055 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 2046 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | von Wagner, Christian Smith, Samuel Halligan, Steve Ghanouni, Alex Power, Emily Lilford, Richard J. Morton, Dion Dadswell, Edward Atkin, Wendy Wardle, Jane |
| description | Objectives
To determine patient acceptability of barium enema (BE) or CT colonography (CTC).
Methods
After ethical approval, 921 consenting patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned and completed either BE (
N
= 606) or CTC (
N
= 315) received a questionnaire to assess experience of the clinical episode including bowel preparation, procedure and complications. Satisfaction, worry and physical discomfort were assessed using an adapted version of a validated acceptability scale. Non-parametric methods assessed differences between the randomised tests and the effect of patient characteristics.
Results
Patients undergoing BE were significantly less satisfied (median 61, interquartile range [IQR] 54–67 vs. median 64, IQR 56–69;
p
= 0.003) and experienced more physical discomfort (median 40, IQR 29–52 vs. median 35.5, IQR 25–47;
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-011-2154-y |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_897814671</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>897814671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-ecfc4c0090864c2b73c1f52b126c388e092b28f93ecdf7632903dbe42661ccab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UcuO1SAYJkbjHEcfwI0hblxVuQ2l7syJt2QSXYxrAvTvDBMoFWgmfR5fVI4dNTFxBf_PdyMfQs8peU0J6d8UQjgnHaG0Y_RCdNsDdKCCs44SJR6iAxm46vphEGfoSSm3hJCBiv4xOmNUMsklP6AfX031MFdsnIOlGuuDrxtOEz5eYZdCmtN1NsvN1oa4mAwjvvP1Bo9ptQHacq7ZlIqtyX6NGGaI5i3OUNZQC55yitjg2AbvmksGnM08puhLE_pFTiG0a83ehJNr2eJSU2yhHF72aOUpejSZUODZ_XmOvn14f3X81F1--fj5-O6yc7wntQM3OeHaH4mSwjHbc0enC2Ypk44rBWRglqlp4ODGqZecDYSPFgSTkjpnLD9Hr3bdJafvK5SqW04HIZgZ0lq0GnpFhexpQ778B3mb1jy3cFqpnghGqWwguoNcTqVkmPSSfTR505ToU39670-3_vSpP701zot74dVGGP8wfhfWAGwHlPY0X0P-6_x_1Z-w2aps</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>887042116</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>von Wagner, Christian ; Smith, Samuel ; Halligan, Steve ; Ghanouni, Alex ; Power, Emily ; Lilford, Richard J. ; Morton, Dion ; Dadswell, Edward ; Atkin, Wendy ; Wardle, Jane</creator><creatorcontrib>von Wagner, Christian ; Smith, Samuel ; Halligan, Steve ; Ghanouni, Alex ; Power, Emily ; Lilford, Richard J. ; Morton, Dion ; Dadswell, Edward ; Atkin, Wendy ; Wardle, Jane ; SIGGAR Investigators ; For the SIGGAR Investigators</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To determine patient acceptability of barium enema (BE) or CT colonography (CTC).
Methods
After ethical approval, 921 consenting patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned and completed either BE (
N
= 606) or CTC (
N
= 315) received a questionnaire to assess experience of the clinical episode including bowel preparation, procedure and complications. Satisfaction, worry and physical discomfort were assessed using an adapted version of a validated acceptability scale. Non-parametric methods assessed differences between the randomised tests and the effect of patient characteristics.
Results
Patients undergoing BE were significantly less satisfied (median 61, interquartile range [IQR] 54–67 vs. median 64, IQR 56–69;
p
= 0.003) and experienced more physical discomfort (median 40, IQR 29–52 vs. median 35.5, IQR 25–47;
p
< 0.001) than those undergoing CTC. Post-test, BE patients were significantly more likely to experience ‘abdominal pain/cramps’ (68% vs. 57%;
p
= 0.007), ‘soreness’ (57% vs. 37%;
p
< 0.001), ‘nausea/vomiting’ (16% vs. 8%;
p
= 0.009), ‘soiling’ (31% vs. 23%;
p
= 0.034) and ‘wind’ (92% vs. 84%;
p
= 0.001) and in the case of ‘wind’ to also rate it as severe (27% vs. 15%;
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
CTC is associated with significant improvements in patient experience. These data support the case for CTC to replace BE.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2154-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21626363</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Abdominal Pain ; Aged ; Barium ; Choice Behavior ; Colonic Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods ; Colonoscopy ; Colonoscopy - methods ; Colorectal cancer ; Contrast Media - pharmacology ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Enema - methods ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Frailty ; Gastrointestinal ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neuroradiology ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patients ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Ultrasound ; University colleges</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2011-10, Vol.21 (10), p.2046-2055</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-ecfc4c0090864c2b73c1f52b126c388e092b28f93ecdf7632903dbe42661ccab3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-ecfc4c0090864c2b73c1f52b126c388e092b28f93ecdf7632903dbe42661ccab3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-011-2154-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-011-2154-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21626363$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>von Wagner, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halligan, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghanouni, Alex</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Power, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lilford, Richard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morton, Dion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dadswell, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkin, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wardle, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SIGGAR Investigators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>For the SIGGAR Investigators</creatorcontrib><title>Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives
To determine patient acceptability of barium enema (BE) or CT colonography (CTC).
Methods
After ethical approval, 921 consenting patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned and completed either BE (
N
= 606) or CTC (
N
= 315) received a questionnaire to assess experience of the clinical episode including bowel preparation, procedure and complications. Satisfaction, worry and physical discomfort were assessed using an adapted version of a validated acceptability scale. Non-parametric methods assessed differences between the randomised tests and the effect of patient characteristics.
Results
Patients undergoing BE were significantly less satisfied (median 61, interquartile range [IQR] 54–67 vs. median 64, IQR 56–69;
p
= 0.003) and experienced more physical discomfort (median 40, IQR 29–52 vs. median 35.5, IQR 25–47;
p
< 0.001) than those undergoing CTC. Post-test, BE patients were significantly more likely to experience ‘abdominal pain/cramps’ (68% vs. 57%;
p
= 0.007), ‘soreness’ (57% vs. 37%;
p
< 0.001), ‘nausea/vomiting’ (16% vs. 8%;
p
= 0.009), ‘soiling’ (31% vs. 23%;
p
= 0.034) and ‘wind’ (92% vs. 84%;
p
= 0.001) and in the case of ‘wind’ to also rate it as severe (27% vs. 15%;
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
CTC is associated with significant improvements in patient experience. These data support the case for CTC to replace BE.</description><subject>Abdominal Pain</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Barium</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Colonic Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colonoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Contrast Media - pharmacology</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Enema - methods</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Frailty</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>University colleges</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UcuO1SAYJkbjHEcfwI0hblxVuQ2l7syJt2QSXYxrAvTvDBMoFWgmfR5fVI4dNTFxBf_PdyMfQs8peU0J6d8UQjgnHaG0Y_RCdNsDdKCCs44SJR6iAxm46vphEGfoSSm3hJCBiv4xOmNUMsklP6AfX031MFdsnIOlGuuDrxtOEz5eYZdCmtN1NsvN1oa4mAwjvvP1Bo9ptQHacq7ZlIqtyX6NGGaI5i3OUNZQC55yitjg2AbvmksGnM08puhLE_pFTiG0a83ehJNr2eJSU2yhHF72aOUpejSZUODZ_XmOvn14f3X81F1--fj5-O6yc7wntQM3OeHaH4mSwjHbc0enC2Ypk44rBWRglqlp4ODGqZecDYSPFgSTkjpnLD9Hr3bdJafvK5SqW04HIZgZ0lq0GnpFhexpQ778B3mb1jy3cFqpnghGqWwguoNcTqVkmPSSfTR505ToU39670-3_vSpP701zot74dVGGP8wfhfWAGwHlPY0X0P-6_x_1Z-w2aps</recordid><startdate>20111001</startdate><enddate>20111001</enddate><creator>von Wagner, Christian</creator><creator>Smith, Samuel</creator><creator>Halligan, Steve</creator><creator>Ghanouni, Alex</creator><creator>Power, Emily</creator><creator>Lilford, Richard J.</creator><creator>Morton, Dion</creator><creator>Dadswell, Edward</creator><creator>Atkin, Wendy</creator><creator>Wardle, Jane</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111001</creationdate><title>Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients</title><author>von Wagner, Christian ; Smith, Samuel ; Halligan, Steve ; Ghanouni, Alex ; Power, Emily ; Lilford, Richard J. ; Morton, Dion ; Dadswell, Edward ; Atkin, Wendy ; Wardle, Jane</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-ecfc4c0090864c2b73c1f52b126c388e092b28f93ecdf7632903dbe42661ccab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Pain</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Barium</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Colonic Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colonoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Contrast Media - pharmacology</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Enema - methods</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Frailty</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>University colleges</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>von Wagner, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halligan, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghanouni, Alex</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Power, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lilford, Richard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morton, Dion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dadswell, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkin, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wardle, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SIGGAR Investigators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>For the SIGGAR Investigators</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>von Wagner, Christian</au><au>Smith, Samuel</au><au>Halligan, Steve</au><au>Ghanouni, Alex</au><au>Power, Emily</au><au>Lilford, Richard J.</au><au>Morton, Dion</au><au>Dadswell, Edward</au><au>Atkin, Wendy</au><au>Wardle, Jane</au><aucorp>SIGGAR Investigators</aucorp><aucorp>For the SIGGAR Investigators</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2011-10-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2046</spage><epage>2055</epage><pages>2046-2055</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To determine patient acceptability of barium enema (BE) or CT colonography (CTC).
Methods
After ethical approval, 921 consenting patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned and completed either BE (
N
= 606) or CTC (
N
= 315) received a questionnaire to assess experience of the clinical episode including bowel preparation, procedure and complications. Satisfaction, worry and physical discomfort were assessed using an adapted version of a validated acceptability scale. Non-parametric methods assessed differences between the randomised tests and the effect of patient characteristics.
Results
Patients undergoing BE were significantly less satisfied (median 61, interquartile range [IQR] 54–67 vs. median 64, IQR 56–69;
p
= 0.003) and experienced more physical discomfort (median 40, IQR 29–52 vs. median 35.5, IQR 25–47;
p
< 0.001) than those undergoing CTC. Post-test, BE patients were significantly more likely to experience ‘abdominal pain/cramps’ (68% vs. 57%;
p
= 0.007), ‘soreness’ (57% vs. 37%;
p
< 0.001), ‘nausea/vomiting’ (16% vs. 8%;
p
= 0.009), ‘soiling’ (31% vs. 23%;
p
= 0.034) and ‘wind’ (92% vs. 84%;
p
= 0.001) and in the case of ‘wind’ to also rate it as severe (27% vs. 15%;
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
CTC is associated with significant improvements in patient experience. These data support the case for CTC to replace BE.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>21626363</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-011-2154-y</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2011-10, Vol.21 (10), p.2046-2055 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_897814671 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Abdominal Pain Aged Barium Choice Behavior Colonic Neoplasms - diagnosis Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods Colonoscopy Colonoscopy - methods Colorectal cancer Contrast Media - pharmacology Diagnostic Radiology Enema - methods Epidemiology Female Frailty Gastrointestinal Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Male Medical imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neuroradiology Patient Satisfaction Patients Radiology Reproducibility of Results Surveys and Questionnaires Ultrasound University colleges |
| title | Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T22%3A38%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patient%20acceptability%20of%20CT%20colonography%20compared%20with%20double%20contrast%20barium%20enema:%20results%20from%20a%20multicentre%20randomised%20controlled%20trial%20of%20symptomatic%20patients&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=von%20Wagner,%20Christian&rft.aucorp=SIGGAR%20Investigators&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2046&rft.epage=2055&rft.pages=2046-2055&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-011-2154-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E897814671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=887042116&rft_id=info:pmid/21626363&rfr_iscdi=true |