ArticleMolecular imaging2010
Shifted helical computed tomography to optimize cardiac positron emission tomography-computed tomography coregistration: quantitative improvement and limitations.
Article in Molecular imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing quantitative myocardial perfusion by positron emission tomography for guiding CAD management.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- Quantitative Coronary Physiology for Clinical Management: the Imaging Standard.Current cardiology reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) uses CT attenuation correction but suffers from misregistration artifacts. However, the quantitative accuracy of helical versus cine CT in the same patient after optimized coregistration by shifting both CT data as needed for each patient is unknown. We studied 293 patients undergoing cardiac perfusion PET-CT using helical CT attenuation correction for comparison to cine CT. Objective, quantitative criteria identified perfusion abnormalities that were associated visually with PET-CT misregistration. Custom software shifted CT data to optimize coregistration with quantitative artifact improvement. The majority (58.1%) of cases with both helical and shifted helical CT data (n = 93) had artifacts that improved or resolved by software shifting helical CT data. Translation of shifted helical CT was greatest in the x-direction (8.8 ± 3.3 mm) and less in the y- and z-directions (approximately 3.5 mm). The magnitude of differences in quantitative end points was greatest for helical (p = .0001, n = 177 studies), less for shifted helical but significant (p = .0001, n = 93 studies), and least for cine (not significant, n = 161 studies) CT compared to optimal attenuation correction for each patient. Frequent artifacts owing to attenuation-emission misregistration are substantially corrected by software shifting helical CT scans to achieve proper coregistration that, however, remains on average significantly inferior to cine CT attenuation quantitatively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20868626PMC9128568What 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.