ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2013
Quality of extracranial carotid evaluation with 256-section CT.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2013. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTo date, no systematic evaluation of image quality has been performed on the 256-section multidetector CT scanner for extracranial carotid evaluations. We evaluated image quality, patient dose, and examination time and compared these parameters with a 64-section multidetector CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reviewed extracranial CTA scans obtained on a 256-detector CT scanner in 50 consecutive patients. Image quality was analyzed for artifacts and vessel contrast opacification from the aortic arch to the skull base, dose to patient, and scan time. Results were compared with a control group of 50 patients imaged on a 64-section CT scanner. A Fisher exact test was used to analyze both groups with respect to vessel contrast opacification and presence of artifacts, and a Student t test was used to assess differences in patient dose between the 2 groups.
resultsQuantitative and qualitative evaluations revealed >95% acceptable vessel opacification at all levels measured on the 256-section scanner. Scan time was improved (4 seconds on 256-channel). There were fewer artifacts related to metallic streak on the 256-channel CTA study, and DLP was lower on the 256-channel CTA (113.9 versus 159.8 mGy).
conclusionsThe 256-channel CTA imaging protocol for carotid arteries yielded similar vessel contrast opacification compared with the 64-channel CTA but with fewer metallic artifacts, a modest decrease in scan time, similar image quality, and a statistically significant reduction in radiation dose of 10%.
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.