Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25806137›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2015

Energy Limits in Second Generation High-pitch Dual Source CT - Comparison in an Upper Abdominal Phantom.

Martin Beeres, Ralf W Bauer, Josef M Kerl, Thomas J Vogl, Clara Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Martin BeeresDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ralf W BauerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Josef M KerlDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Thomas J VoglDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Clara LeeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of our study was to find out how much energy is applicable in second-generation dual source high-pitch computed tomography (CT) in imaging of the abdomen. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe examined an upper abdominal phantom using a Somatom Definition Flash CT-Scanner (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany). The study protocol consisted of a scan-series at 100 kV and 120 kV. In each scan series we started with a pitch of 3.2 and reduced it in steps of 0.2, until a pitch of 1.6 was reached. The current was adjusted to the maximum the scanner could achieve. Energy values, image noise, image quality, and radiation exposure were evaluated.

resultsFor a pitch of 3.2 the maximum applicable current was 142 mAs at 120 kV and in 100 kV the maximum applicable current was 114 mAs. For conventional abdominal imaging, current levels of 200 to 260 mAs are generally used. To achieve similar current levels, we had to decrease the pitch to 1.8 at 100 kV - at this pitch we could perform our imaging at 204 mAs. At a pitch of 2.2 in 120 kV we could apply a current of 206 mAs.

conclusionWe conclude our study by stating that if there is a need for a higher current, we have to reduce the pitch. In a high-pitch dual source CT, we always have to remember where our main focus is, so we can adjust the pitch to the energy we need in the area of the body that has to be imaged, to find answers to the clinical question being raised.

Indexed as

Abdominal imagingcomputer tomographyhigh-pitch

Identifiers

PMID25806137
PMCPMC4322381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.