Comparative study of pineapple juice as a negative oral contrast agent in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

Alshehri FM, Fahad Mohammed Ali Alshehri
Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2015 · vol. 9(1) , pp. TC13–6 · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2015/10240.5463 · PMID:25738055 · PMC4347146
Other OA: closed CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-10-10 ⓘ

This study compared pineapple juice and ranitidine as negative oral contrast agents for magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, finding that pineapple juice significantly improved image quality of the bile ducts and fluid elimination compared to ranitidine or no agent.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-10-10 · read from full text ⓘ

This article was originally a comparative study evaluating the efficacy of pineapple juice as a negative oral contrast agent in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. The research aimed to determine if this dietary substance could effectively distend the gastrointestinal tract to improve imaging clarity for the biliary and pancreatic systems. However, the publication has been formally retracted by the editorial board due to significant data methodology and results issues identified during post-publication reanalysis following a formal complaint. Relevance to endometriosis: The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the image quality of magnetic resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) using Pineapple Juice (PJ) or ranitidine as negative oral contrast agents and no agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRCP images of patients administered PJ (n = 117) or Ranitidine (n = 110) at random, and patients without an agent (n = 50) were evaluated. The subjective image quality of the overall, extra hepatic bile duct and pancreatic duct and the degree of elimination of gastrointestinal fluid were scored by two blinded radiologists. RESULTS were compared using Mann-Whitney's U-test. RESULTS: The degrees of elimination of gastro duodenal fluid of PJ and ranitidine were significantly better than those without an agent (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). The subjective image quality of PJ of the overall and extra hepatic bile duct were significantly better, although no significant differences for ranitidine were observed compared with those without an agent (p < 0.01 and p =0.23, p = 0.025 and p = 0.18). There were no significant differences for the pancreatic duct (p = 0.13 and p = 0.20), nor were there any significant differences in the evaluations between PJ and ranitidine (p = 0.21 and p = 0.96). CONCLUSION: PJ showed better performance compared to that of conventional ranitidine in terms of pancreatic and biliary depiction and safety.
Full text 1,345 characters · extracted from oa-html · click to expand
Comparative Study of Pineapple Juice as a Negative Oral Contrast Agent in Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography-Article Retracted Correspondence Address : Dr. Fahad Mohammed Ali AlShehri, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, PO Box 6655 Buraydah 51452. E-mail : [email protected] This article has been retracted by the Editorial due to problems with Data discovered on post publication reanalysis of paper following a complaint. Details of the issues related to the data methodology and results, found on re-evaluation can be obtained from the Journal ([email protected]) . Date of Retraction: 25.07.17 Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, Negative oral contrast agent, Pineapple juice, Ranitidine DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/10240.5463 Date of Submission: Aug 06, 2014 Date of Peer Review: Sep 07, 2014 Date of Acceptance: Oct 09, 2014 Date of Publishing: Jan 01, 2015 Financial OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS: None. - Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters) - Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54 - Academic Search Complete Database - Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) - Embase - EBSCOhost - Google Scholar - HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme - Indian Science Abstracts (ISA) - Journal seek Database - Popline (reproductive health literature) - www.omnimedicalsearch.com

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-11T09:27:45.537177+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:15:13.843571+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-12T06:43:03.944938+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0