ArticleInsights into imaging2012
Comparison of free breathing versus breath-hold in perfusion imaging using dynamic volume CT.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of full-dose contrast-enhanced CT for extrahepatic staging using Gallium-68-DOTATATE PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2021Article
- Interobserver and Intraobserver Reproducibility with Volume Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (DCE-CT) in Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Quantitative analysis of respiration-related movement for abdominal artery in multiphase hepatic CT.PloS one · 2014Article
- Computed Tomography (CT) Perfusion in Abdominal Cancer: Technical Aspects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare two scanning protocols (free breathing versus breath-hold) for perfusion imaging using dynamic volume computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate their effects on image registration. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty patients underwent dynamic volume CT for pancreatic perfusion analysis and were randomly assigned to either a shallow-breathing (I) or breath-hold (II) group. Both dynamic CT protocols consisted of 17 low-dose volumetric scans. Rigid image registration was performed by using the volume with highest aortic attenuation as reference. All other volumes were visually matched with the pancreatic lesion serving as the volumetric region of interest. The overall demand for post-processing per patient was calculated as the median of three-dimensional vector lengths of all volumes in relation to the relative patient origin. The number of volumes not requiring registration was recorded per group.
resultsRegistration mismatch for groups I and II was 2.61 mm (SD, 1.57) and 4.95 mm (SD, 2.71), respectively (P < 0.005). Twenty-eight volumes in group I (8.2%) and 47 volumes in group II (14.1%) did not require manual registration (P = 0.014).
conclusionShallow breathing during dynamic volume CT scanning reduces the overall demand for motion correction and thus may be beneficial in perfusion imaging of the pancreas MAIN MESSAGES: • Shallow breathing during perfusion CT scanning reduces the overall demand for motion correction. • Shallow breathing may be beneficial in perfusion imaging of the pancreas. • Image registration is crucial for CT perfusion imaging.
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.