ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2013
Low-dose CT coronary angiography using iterative reconstruction with a 256-slice CT scanner.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose reduction with iterative reconstruction for coronary CT angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2016Pooled it
- Development of an organ-specific insert phantom generated using a 3D printer for investigations of cardiac computed tomography protocols.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2018Article
- The role of advanced reconstruction algorithms in cardiac CT.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017Review
- Myocardial CT perfusion imaging for ischemia detection.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017Review
- 128-slice CT angiography of the aorta without ECG-gating: efficacy of faster gantry rotation time and iterative reconstruction in terms of image quality and radiation dose.European radiology · 2016Article
- Low-dose CT coronary angiography for assessment of coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes--a cross-sectional study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2015Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore whether computer tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) using iterative reconstruction (IR) leads to significant radiation dose reduction without a significant loss in image interpretability compared to conventional filtered back projection (FBP).
methodsA consecutive series of 200 patients referred to our institution to undergo CTCA constituted the study population. Patients were sequentially assigned to FBP or IR. All studies were acquired with a 256-slice CT scanner. A coronary segment was considered interpretable if image quality was adequate for evaluation of coronary lesions in all segments ≥ 1.5 mm.
resultsThe mean age was 56.3 ± 9.6 years and 165 (83%) were male, with no significant differences between groups. Most scans were acquired using prospective ECG triggering, without differences between groups (FBP 84% vs IR 82%; P = 0.71). A total of 3198 (94%) coronary segments were deemed of diagnostic quality. The percent assessable coronary segments was similar between groups (FBP 91.7% ± 4.0% vs IR 92.5% ± 2.8%; P = 0.12). Radiation dose was significantly lower in the IR group (2.8 ± 1.4 mSv vs 4.6 ± 3.0 mSv; P < 0.0001). Image noise (37.8 ± 1.4 HU vs 38.2 ± 2.4 HU; P = 0.20) and signal density (461.7 ± 51.9 HU vs 462.2 ± 51.2 HU; P = 0.54) levels did not differ between FBP and IR groups, respectively. The IR group was associated to significant effective dose reductions, irrespective of the acquisition mode.
conclusionApplication of IR in CTCA preserves image interpretability despite a significant reduction in radiation dose.
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.