Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26435916›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2015

Use of 100 kV versus 120 kV in computed tomography pulmonary angiography in the detection of pulmonary embolism: effect on radiation dose and image quality.

Maninderpal Kaur Gill, Anushya Vijayananthan, Gnana Kumar, Kasthoori Jayarani, Kwan-Hoong Ng, Zhonghua Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pregnancy-Related Cardiovascular Diseases: A Radiological Overview.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Chronic pulmonary embolism: diagnosis.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2018
    Review
  17. 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

6 authors.

Maninderpal Kaur Gill1 Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 2 University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre (UMRIC), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 3 Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Anushya Vijayananthan1 Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 2 University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre (UMRIC), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 3 Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Gnana Kumar1 Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 2 University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre (UMRIC), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 3 Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Kasthoori Jayarani1 Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 2 University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre (UMRIC), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 3 Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Kwan-Hoong Ng1 Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 2 University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre (UMRIC), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 3 Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Zhonghua Sun1 Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 2 University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre (UMRIC), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ; 3 Department of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the effective radiation dose and image quality resulting from 100 versus 120 kilovoltage (kV) protocols among patients referred for computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA).

methodsSixty-six patients with clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism (PE) were prospectively enrolled. Two CTPA protocols (group A: n=33, 100 kV/115 mAs; group B: n=33, 120 kV/90 mAs) were compared. Two experienced radiologists assessed image quality in terms of diagnostic performance and effect of artefacts. Image quality parameters [CT attenuation, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)] and effective radiation dose between the two protocols were compared.

resultsThe contrast enhancement in central and peripheral pulmonary arteries was significantly higher in group A than in group B (P<0.001) with the identical SNR (P=0.26), whereas the CNR was significantly higher in group A than in group B (P<0.001). The effective radiation dose for the 100 and 120 kV scans was 3.2 and 6.8 mSv, respectively.

conclusionsReducing the tube voltage from 120 to 100 kV in CTPA allows a significant reduction of radiation dose without significant loss of diagnostic image quality.

Indexed as

Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)image qualitypulmonary embolism (PE)radiation dose

Identifiers

PMID26435916
PMCPMC4559980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.