Determination of Zinc, Cadmium, Lead, Copper and Silver Using a Carbon Paste Electrode and a Screen Printed Electrode Modified with Chromium(III) Oxide

In this study, the preparation and electrochemical application of a chromium(III) oxide modified carbon paste electrode (Cr-CPE) and a screen printed electrode (SPE), made from the same material and optimized for the simple, cheap and sensitive simultaneous determination of zinc, cadmium, lead, copper and the detection of silver ions, is described. The limits of detection and quantification were 25 and 80 mu g center dot L-1 for Zn(II), 3 and 10 mu g center dot L-1 for Cd(II), 3 and 10 mu g center dot L-1 for Pb(II), 3 and 10 mu g center dot L-1 for Cu(II), and 3 and 10 mu g center dot L-1 for Ag(I), respectively. Furthermore, this promising modification was transferred to the screen-printed electrode. The limits of detection for the simultaneous determination of zinc, cadmium, copper and lead on the screen printed electrodes were found to be 350 mu g center dot L-1 for Zn(II), 25 mu g center dot L-1 for Cd(II), 3 mu g center dot L-1 for Pb(II) and 3 mu g center dot L-1 for Cu(II). Practical usability for the simultaneous detection of these heavy metal ions by the Cr-CPE was also demonstrated in the analyses of wastewaters

Iopromide for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pertinent Literature

Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging modality. Clinical data is scarce. Objectives: To summarize clinical evidence on the use of iopromide in CEM for the detection or by systematically analyzing the available literature on efficacy and safety. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: Iopromide-specific publications reporting its use in CEM were identified by a systematic search within Bayer’s Product Literature Information (PLI) database and by levering a recent review publication. The literature search in PLI was performed up to January 2023. The confirmatory-supporting review publication was based on a MEDLINE/EMBASE + full text search for publications issued between September 2003 and January 2019. Relevant literature was selected based on pre-defined criteria by 2 reviewers. The comparison of CEM vs traditional mammography (XRM) was performed on published results of sensitivity and specificity. Differences in diagnostic parameters were assessed within a meta-analysis. Results: Literature search: A total of 31 studies were identified reporting data on 5194 patients. Thereof, 19 studies on efficacy and 3 studies on safety. Efficacy: in 11 studies comparing iopromide CEM vs XRM, sensitivity was up to 43% higher (range 1%-43%) for CEM. Differences in specificity were found to be in a range of −4% to 46% for CEM compared with XRM. The overall gain in sensitivity for CEM vs XRM was 7% (95% CI [4%, 11%]) with no statistically significant loss in specificity in any study assessed. In most studies, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were found to be in favor of CEM. In 2 studies comparing CEM with breast magnetic resonance imaging (bMRI), both imaging modalities performed either equally well or CEM tended to show better results with respect to sensitivity and specificity. Safety: eight cases of iopromide-related adverse drug reactions were reported in 1022 patients (0.8%). Conclusions: Pertinent literature provides evidence for clinical utility of iopromide in CEM for the detection or confirmation of breast cancer. The overall gain in sensitivity for iopromide CEM vs XRM was 7% with no statistically significant loss in specificity