ArticlePloS one2015
Pilot study on image quality and radiation dose of CT colonography with adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate image quality and radiation dose of CT colonography (CTC) with adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional (AIDR3D).
methodsTen segments of porcine colon phantom were collected, and 30 pedunculate polyps with diameters ranging from 1 to 15 mm were simulated on each segment. Image data were acquired with tube voltage of 120 kVp, and current doses of 10 mAs, 20 mAs, 30 mAs, 40 mAs, 50 mAs, respectively. CTC images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and AIDR3D. Two radiologists blindly evaluated image quality. Quantitative evaluation of image quality included image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Qualitative image quality was evaluated with a five-score scale. Radiation dose was calculated based on dose-length product. Ten volunteers were examined supine 50 mAs with FBP and prone 20 mAs with AIDR3D, and image qualities were assessed. Paired t test was performed for statistical analysis.
resultsFor 20 mAs with AIDR3D and 50 mAs with FBP, image noise, SNRs and CNRs were (16.4 ± 1.6) HU vs. (16.8 ± 2.6) HU, 1.9 ± 0.2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4, and 62.3 ± 6.8 vs. 62.0 ± 6.2, respectively; qualitative image quality scores were 4.1 and 4.3, respectively; their differences were all not statistically significant. Compared with 50 mAs with FBP, radiation dose (1.62 mSv) of 20 mAs with AIDR3D was decreased by 60.0%. There was no statistically significant difference in image noise, SNRs, CNRs and qualitative image quality scores between prone 20 mAs with AIDR3D and supine 50 mAs with FBP in 10 volunteers, the former reduced radiation dose by 61.1%.
conclusionImage quality of CTC using 20 mAs with AIDR3D could be comparable to standard 50 mAs with FBP, radiation dose of the former reduced by about 60.0% and was only 1.62 mSv.
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.