ArticleNeuroradiology2012
Comparison of 64-row and 16-row multidetector CT in the perfusion CT evaluation of acute ischemic stroke patients receiving intravenous thrombolytic therapy.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2012. 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.
- Patient selection for mechanical thrombectomy.Clinical neuroradiology · 2014Trial
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
introductionPerfusion computed tomography (PCT) is increasingly performed in multimodal CT evaluation of acute ischemic stroke. We compared the technical quality of perfusion studies performed with a 16-row and a 64-row scanner and analyzed the differences between the scanners in their ability to detect perfusion defects.
methodsWe analyzed retrospectively the clinical and imaging data of 140 consecutive acute (<3 h) stroke patients who underwent multimodal CT evaluation and received intravenous rtPA. Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) was assigned to PCT maps. Clinical and imaging parameters were compared between the two scanners.
resultsThere were more motion artifacts in the 16-row studies (p = 0.04), and the analysis software was able to completely correct significantly fewer of these (p < 0.001). Both ASPECTS levels were optimally covered in only 29% of the 16-row studies, whereas in the 64-row studies, both levels were invariably optimally visualized (p < 0.001). This significantly decreased the sensitivity of the 16-row scanner to detect perfusion defects in the upper ASPECTS level (p = 0.02). The 64-row scanner was able to detect more perfusion defects that were located entirely outside the ASPECTS regions (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the 3-month functional outcome.
conclusionsThe 16-row scanner suffered from limited anatomic coverage that decreased the sensitivity to detect perfusion defects in the cranial parts of the middle cerebral artery region. The 16-row studies had poorer technical quality that was in part attributable to higher sampling frequency and smaller slice thickness making the imaging more sensitive to small-scale movement of the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22318780What 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.