Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26288186›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Image Quality of 3rd Generation Spiral Cranial Dual-Source CT in Combination with an Advanced Model Iterative Reconstruction Technique: A Prospective Intra-Individual Comparison Study to Standard Sequential Cranial CT Using Identical Radiation Dose.

Holger Wenz, Máté E Maros, Mathias Meyer, Alex Förster, Holger Haubenreisser, Stefan Kurth, Stefan O Schoenberg, Thomas Flohr, Christianne Leidecker, Christoph Groden and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

12 authors.

Holger WenzDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Máté E MarosDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Mathias MeyerInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Alex FörsterDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Holger HaubenreisserInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Stefan KurthDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Stefan O SchoenbergInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Thomas FlohrSiemens Healthcare Sector, Division of Computed Tomography, Forchheim, Germany.
Christianne LeideckerSiemens Healthcare Sector, Division of Computed Tomography, Forchheim, Germany.
Christoph GrodenDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Johann ScharfDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Thomas HenzlerInstitute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo prospectively intra-individually compare image quality of a 3rd generation Dual-Source-CT (DSCT) spiral cranial CT (cCT) to a sequential 4-slice Multi-Slice-CT (MSCT) while maintaining identical intra-individual radiation dose levels.

methods35 patients, who had a non-contrast enhanced sequential cCT examination on a 4-slice MDCT within the past 12 months, underwent a spiral cCT scan on a 3rd generation DSCT. CTDIvol identical to initial 4-slice MDCT was applied. Data was reconstructed using filtered backward projection (FBP) and 3rd-generation iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithm at 5 different IR strength levels. Two neuroradiologists independently evaluated subjective image quality using a 4-point Likert-scale and objective image quality was assessed in white matter and nucleus caudatus with signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) being subsequently calculated.

resultsSubjective image quality of all spiral cCT datasets was rated significantly higher compared to the 4-slice MDCT sequential acquisitions (p<0.05). Mean SNR was significantly higher in all spiral compared to sequential cCT datasets with mean SNR improvement of 61.65% (p*Bonferroni0.05<0.0024). Subjective image quality improved with increasing IR levels.

conclusionCombination of 3rd-generation DSCT spiral cCT with an advanced model IR technique significantly improves subjective and objective image quality compared to a standard sequential cCT acquisition acquired at identical dose levels.

Indexed as

Image EnhancementRadiation DosageAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesSignal-To-Noise RatioSkullTomography, Spiral Computed

Identifiers

PMID26288186
PMCPMC4542205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.