ArticleEuropean radiology2008
Flat panel computed tomography for non-invasive flow measurement: initial results in in-vitro studies.
Article in European radiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Noninvasive Assessment of Flow Based on Contrast Dispersion in Computed Tomography Angiography: A Computational and Experimental Phantom Study.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2022Article
- Evaluation of demineralized bone and bone transplants in vitro and in vivo with cone beam computed tomography imaging.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2010Article
- Brain imaging with a flat detector C-arm : Technique and clinical interest of XperCT.Neuroradiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose was to evaluate the feasibility of flat panel computed tomography (FPCT) for quantifying flow by analyzing contrast changes along the z-axis in an in-vitro setting. Contrast material was injected in a 3-mm silicone tube at flow rates of 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 and 1.0 ml/s using a commercially available injector pump. FPCT scans of this phantom were performed with a gantry rotation time of 3 s. From this data 41 phases were reconstructed at different points in time using a full and a partial gantry rotation. The differences in the contrast material arrival time and the contrast enhancement along the z-axis were recorded. Flow was calculated from this data and compared to the injector settings. There was a good agreement between the injector settings and the calculated flow rates, but agreement decreased with increasing flow rates. Absolute (percent) mean deviation between the injector settings and calculated flow values was 0.0230 +/- 0.0489ml/s (3.7243 +/- 4.7817%) using the full gantry rotation. Repeated-measurement ANOVA failed to show significant differences between the various techniques (p = 0.9726). FPCT allows for computing flow. While preliminary results indicate a good agreement at low flow rates, further studies are needed to assess this technique for higher flow rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18060409What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.