ArticleRadiological physics and technology2014
Artifacts caused by insufficient contrast medium filling during C-arm cone-beam CT scans: a phantom study.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2014. 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.
- Application of low injection rate and low contrast agent dose in three-dimensional rotational digital subtraction angiography of the intracranial aneurysm.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2016Trial
- Visualization of anatomical structures in the fetlock region of the horse using cone beam computed tomography in comparison with conventional multidetector computed tomography.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
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
We investigated artifacts due to late-arriving contrast medium (CM) during C-arm cone-beam computed tomography. We scanned a phantom filled with water or with 100, 50, or 5% v/v concentrations of CM and then virtually produced CM-delayed projection data by partially replacing the projection images. Artifacts as a function of concentration, percentage of filling time, and size and position of the filling area were assessed. In addition, we used an automatic power injector with different injection delays to inject CM during the scans. A decrease in filling times caused by a lag in CM arrival during the scan resulted in a decrease in pixel values, distortion of the filling area, and appearance of streak artifacts. Even a delay of approximately 20% in CM arrival in the total scan time resulted in obvious distortion of the filling area. The distortion and streak artifacts tended to worsen at higher CM concentrations. Use of a minimum CM concentration based on the purpose of the examination and constant filling at the target region are effective for avoiding these artifacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23775309What 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.