ArticleEuropean radiology2015
Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system.
Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography for scaphoid fractures: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Occult fractures of the tibial plateau: 3D augmented X-ray pilot study.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of intraoperative CT to determine implant position in the feline vertebral spine.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating the diagnostic performance of 3D radiographs in emergency department extremity imaging: an early comparative study.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Image quality and radiation dose of cone-beam CT versus multidetector CT for upper extremity osteosynthesis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effect of Additional Aluminum Filtration on the Image Quality in Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Studies of Equine Distal Limbs Using Visual Grading Characteristics Analysis: A Pilot Study.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Cone beam CT in the imaging of musculoskeletal trauma: a scoping review.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- New imaging techniques and trends in radiology.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- The effects of masseter muscle morphology on three-dimensional occlusion and temporomandibular joint in adult patients with skeletal class II malocclusion: a CBCT study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Image quality assessment in spine surgery: a comparison of intraoperative CBCT and postoperative MDCT.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Analysis of spatial patellofemoral alignment using novel three-dimensional measurements based on weight-bearing cone-beam CT.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Weightbearing Computed Tomography Measurements in Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity: A Contemporary Review.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2025Review
- CT in musculoskeletal imaging: still helpful and for what?Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- Advantages of cone beam computed tomography for evaluation of subchondral insufficiency fractures of the knee compared to MRI.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Based Diagnosis of Dental Bone Defects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Subchondral bone in knee osteoarthritis: bystander or treatment target?Skeletal radiology · 2023Review
- Development and evaluation of ultrasound image tracking technology based on Mask R-CNN applied to respiratory motion compensation system.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Imaging of Cartilage and Chondral Defects: An Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess visualization tasks using cone-beam CT (CBCT) compared to multi-detector CT (MDCT) for musculoskeletal extremity imaging.
methodsTen cadaveric hands and ten knees were examined using a dedicated CBCT prototype and a clinical multi-detector CT using nominal protocols (80 kVp-108mAs for CBCT; 120 kVp- 300 mAs for MDCT). Soft tissue and bone visualization tasks were assessed by four radiologists using five-point satisfaction (for CBCT and MDCT individually) and five-point preference (side-by-side CBCT versus MDCT image quality comparison) rating tests. Ratings were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and observer agreement was assessed using the Kappa-statistic.
resultsKnee CBCT images were rated "excellent" or "good" (median scores 5 and 4) for "bone" and "soft tissue" visualization tasks. Hand CBCT images were rated "excellent" or "adequate" (median scores 5 and 3) for "bone" and "soft tissue" visualization tasks. Preference tests rated CBCT equivalent or superior to MDCT for bone visualization and favoured the MDCT for soft tissue visualization tasks. Intraobserver agreement for CBCT satisfaction tests was fair to almost perfect (κ ~ 0.26-0.92), and interobserver agreement was fair to moderate (κ ~ 0.27-0.54).
conclusionCBCT provided excellent image quality for bone visualization and adequate image quality for soft tissue visualization tasks. KEY POINTS: • CBCT provided adequate image quality for diagnostic tasks in extremity imaging. • CBCT images were "excellent" for "bone" and "good/adequate" for "soft tissue" visualization tasks. • CBCT image quality was equivalent/superior to MDCT for bone visualization tasks.
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.