ArticleEuropean radiology2011
Dual energy bone subtraction in computed tomography angiography of extracranial-intracranial bypass: feasibility and limitations.
Article in European radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility of dual energy (DE)-CTA images with DE-bone removal (DEBR) for visualization of extra- to intracranial (EC/IC) arterial bypass compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA). MATERIALS AND
methodsProspectively, 24 patients underwent DE-CTA and DSA for evaluation of EC/IC-bypass. Using 5-point scales (0=poor to 4=excellent) two examiners rated image quality, quality of bone removal, and vessel integrity of bypass for three segments (extracranial, trepanation, intracranial) in CTA images with and without DEBR in comparison to DSA. Scores were evaluated by Friedmann's- and post-hoc Wilcoxon rank test.
resultsImage quality was high in CTA with and without DEBR and DSA (3.78 ± 0.36, 3.78 ± 0.36, 3.27 ± 0.46). No significant bone remnants were present using DEBR. Mean scores of bypass visualization were not significantly different for the extra- and intracranial segments. However, in the trepanation segment pseudo-lesions of the bypass were present in DEBR-CTA (6 out 24 cases) with a negative effect on visualization scores compared to DSA (p < 0.05).
conclusionCTA with DEBR for assessment of EC/IC-bypass is feasible with reliable removal of cranial bones. Readers should be aware of a potential pitfall showing focal pseudostenosis/-occlusion of the bypass close to bone at the trepanation margin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.