Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25058059›Full record

ArticleJournal of endourology2015

In vivo comparison of radiation exposure of dual-energy CT versus low-dose CT versus standard CT for imaging urinary calculi.

Maria A Jepperson, Joseph G Cernigliaro, El-Sayed H Ibrahim, Richard L Morin, William E Haley, David D Thiel

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of endourology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dual-Energy CT for Urinary Stone Evaluation.Current urology reports · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Advanced abdominal imaging with dual energy CT is feasible without increasing radiation dose.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maria A Jepperson1 Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic , Jacksonville, Florida.
Joseph G Cernigliaro
El-Sayed H Ibrahim
Richard L Morin
William E Haley
David D Thiel

Funding

Mayo Clinic Urology O'Brien Research CenterP50DK083007 · NIDDK · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI LIESKE, JOHN C · 2008 to 2012
$5.3M
NIDDK NIH HHS DK 83007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is an emerging imaging modality with the unique capability of determining urinary stone composition. This study compares radiation exposure of DECT, standard single-energy CT (SECT), and low-dose renal stone protocol single-energy CT (LDSECT) for the evaluation of nephrolithiasis in a single in vivo patient cohort. MATERIALS AND

methodsFollowing institutional review board (IRB) approval, we retrospectively reviewed 200 consecutive DECT examinations performed on patients with suspected urolithiasis over a 6-month period. Of these, 35 patients had undergone examination with our LDSECT protocol, and 30 patients had undergone examination of the abdomen and pelvis with our SECT imaging protocol within 2 years of the DECT examination. The CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) was used to compare radiation exposure between scans. Image quality was objectively evaluated by comparing image noise. Statistical evaluation was performed using a Student's t-test.

resultsDECT performed at 80/140 kVp and 100/140 kVp did not produce a significant difference in radiation exposure compared with LDSECT (p=0.09 and 0.18, respectively). DECT performed at 80/140 kVp and 100/140 kVp produced an average 40% and 31%, respectively, reduction in radiation exposure compared with SECT (p<0.001). For patients imaged with the 100/140 kVp protocol, average values for images noise were higher in the LDSECT images compared with DECT images (p<0.001) and there was no significant difference in image noise between DECT and SECT images in the same patient (p=0.88). Patients imaged with the 80/140 kVp protocol had equivocal image noise compared with LDSECT images (p=0.44), however, DECT images had greater noise compared with SECT images in the same patient (p<0.001). Of the 75 patients included in the study, stone material was available for 16; DECT analysis correctly predicted stone composition in 15/16 patients (93%).

conclusionDECT provides knowledge of stone composition in addition to the anatomic information provided by LDSECT/SECT without increasing patient radiation exposure and with minimal impact on image noise.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNephrolithiasisRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID25058059
PMCPMC4313790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.