Trial reportBioMed research international2015
Ultrafast cone-beam computed tomography: a comparative study of imaging protocols during image-guided therapy procedure.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empiric cone-beam CT-guided embolization in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.European radiology · 2021Article
- Reproducibility and Repeatability of CBCT-Derived Radiomics Features.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate two ultrafast cone-beam CT (UF-CBCT) imaging protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters regarding image quality and required contrast media during image-guided hepatic transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).
methodsIn 80 patients (male: 46, female: 34; mean age: 56.8 years; range: 33-83) UF-CBCT was performed during TACE for intraprocedural guidance. Imaging was performed using two ultrafast CBCT acquisition protocols with different acquisition and injection parameters (imaging protocol 1: acquisition time 2.54 s, and contrast 6 mL with 3 s delay; imaging protocol 2: acquisition time 2.72 s, and contrast 7 mL with 6 s delay). Image evaluation was performed with both qualitative and quantitative methods. Contrast injection volume and dose parameters were compared using values from the literature.
resultsImaging protocol 2 provided significantly better (P < 0.05) image quality than protocol 1 at the cost of slightly higher contrast load and patient dose. Imaging protocol 1 provided good contrast perfusion but it mostly failed to delineate the tumors (P < 0.05). On the contrary, imaging protocol 2 showed excellent enhancement of hepatic parenchyma, tumor, and feeding vessels.
conclusionTumor delineation, visualization of hepatic parenchyma, and feeding vessels are clearly possible using imaging protocol 2 with ultrafast CBCT imaging. A reduction of required contrast volume and patient dose were achieved due to the ultrafast CBCT imaging.
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.