Acute DyspnoeaPhase 1NCT00188435
Comparison of CXR and MnDCT
A Phase 1 study testing Minimum Dose CT in people with Acute Dyspnoea, run by University Health Network, Toronto.
Trial summary
A comparison of chest x-ray (CXR) and Minimum dose CT (MnDCT) in the acutely ill patient. The hypothesis is that MnDCT is more sensitive than CXR in the detection of acute findings in the acutely ill patient. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Acute Dyspnoea
- What is being tested?
- Minimum Dose CT
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Nov 2003to Dec 2004
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 16 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All patients admitted for investigation of acute pulmonary embolus
Who cannot join
- none
About this study
Official title: A Comparison of Chest Radiography and Minimum Dose Chest CT
A comparison of chest x-ray (CXR) and Minimum dose CT (MnDCT) in the acutely ill patient. The hypothesis is that MnDCT is more sensitive than CXR in the detection of acute findings in the acutely ill patient.
Read the detailed description
A comparison of chest x-ray (CXR) and Minimum dose CT (MnDCT) in a cohort of 100 patients admitted for acute respiratory distress. Chest radiography (CXR) is compared to Minimum Dose CT (MnDCT) for the detection of consolidation;lung nodules, heart failure.
- Conditions
- Acute Dyspnoea
- Being tested
- Minimum Dose CT
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Minimum Dose CTProcedure or surgery
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
A comparison of CXr and MnDCT in the detection of acute findings within the thorax
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Study startNov 2003
- Study completionDec 2004
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Acute DyspnoeaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Health Network, TorontoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 100 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Health Network, Toronto
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Narinder Paul, FRCP C, Principal investigator, University Health Network, Toronto
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00188435
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 03-0731
- Status last verified
- Sep 2005
- First submitted
- 12 Sep 2005
- Last updated
- 24 Apr 2007
- Results posted
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Apr 2007. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparison of Chest Radiography and Minimum Dose Chest CT
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00188435
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 03-0731
- Conditions
- Acute Dyspnoea
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants
- Lead sponsor
- University Health Network, TorontoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Nov 2003
- Study completion
- Dec 2004
- First posted
- 16 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
A comparison of chest x-ray (CXR) and Minimum dose CT (MnDCT) in the acutely ill patient. The hypothesis is that MnDCT is more sensitive than CXR in the detection of acute findings in the acutely ill patient.
Detailed description
A comparison of chest x-ray (CXR) and Minimum dose CT (MnDCT) in a cohort of 100 patients admitted for acute respiratory distress. Chest radiography (CXR) is compared to Minimum Dose CT (MnDCT) for the detection of consolidation;lung nodules, heart failure.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 16 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All patients admitted for investigation of acute pulmonary embolus
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- none
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum Dose CT | Procedure or surgery | – |
Primary outcome
A comparison of CXr and MnDCT in the detection of acute findings within the thorax
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Apr 2007.
Related trials for Acute Dyspnoea
Recruiting
The Impact of Telemedicine, Using the Caller's Mobile Phone Camera, on the Quality of Care Provided to Adult Patients Contacting the 15 Centre for Acute Dyspnea
Dyspnea
Recruiting
Evaluation of Fibroscan® Performance in Diagnosing Acute Heart Failure in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department
Acute Heart Failure (AHF)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Diaphragm Response in Elderly for Acute Monitoring
Acute Dyspnea, Acute Respiratory Failure
Recruiting
Low Level Tragus Stimulation in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
Not yet recruiting
Implementation of Mobile Intensive Care Unit Ultrasound Based Management for Acute Dyspnea
Acute Dyspnea
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Narinder Paul, FRCP C principal investigator
University Health Network, Toronto
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 1 study testing Minimum Dose CT in people with Acute Dyspnoea, run by University Health Network, Toronto.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Apr 2007. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 1 studies test a treatment in a small group of people for the first time or in a new way, mainly to check safety and find the right dose.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
A comparison of CXr and MnDCT in the detection of acute findings within the thorax. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Apr 2007.