Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26715558›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2016

Comparison of iterative model, hybrid iterative, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in low-dose brain CT: impact of thin-slice imaging.

Takeshi Nakaura, Yuji Iyama, Masafumi Kidoh, Koichi Yokoyama, Seitaro Oda, Shinichi Tokuyasu, Kazunori Harada, Yasuyuki Yamashita

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Takeshi NakauraDiagnostic Radiology, Amakusa Medical Center, Kameba 854-1, Amakusa, Kumamoto, 863-0046, Japan. kff00712@nifty.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9010-0341
Yuji IyamaDiagnostic Radiology, Amakusa Medical Center, Kameba 854-1, Amakusa, Kumamoto, 863-0046, Japan.
Masafumi KidohDiagnostic Radiology, Amakusa Medical Center, Kameba 854-1, Amakusa, Kumamoto, 863-0046, Japan.
Koichi YokoyamaDiagnostic Radiology, Amakusa Medical Center, Kameba 854-1, Amakusa, Kumamoto, 863-0046, Japan.
Seitaro OdaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Shinichi TokuyasuPhilips Electronics, Kumamoto, Japan.
Kazunori HaradaDepartment of Surgery, Amakusa Medical Center, Kumamoto, Japan.
Yasuyuki YamashitaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of iterative model reconstruction (IMR) in brain CT especially with thin-slice images.

methodsThis prospective study received institutional review board approval, and prior informed consent to participate was obtained from all patients. We enrolled 34 patients who underwent brain CT and reconstructed axial images with filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) and IMR with 1 and 5 mm slice thicknesses. The CT number, image noise, contrast, and contrast noise ratio (CNR) between the thalamus and internal capsule, and the rate of increase of image noise in 1 and 5 mm thickness images between the reconstruction methods, were assessed. Two independent radiologists assessed image contrast, image noise, image sharpness, and overall image quality on a 4-point scale.

resultsThe CNRs in 1 and 5 mm slice thickness were significantly higher with IMR (1.2 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.8, respectively) than with FBP (0.4 ± 0.3 and 1.0 ± 0.4, respectively) and HIR (0.5 ± 0.3 and 1.2 ± 0.4, respectively) (p < 0.01). The mean rate of increasing noise from 5 to 1 mm thickness images was significantly lower with IMR (1.7 ± 0.3) than with FBP (2.3 ± 0.3) and HIR (2.3 ± 0.4) (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in qualitative analysis of unfamiliar image texture between the reconstruction techniques.

conclusionIMR offers significant noise reduction and higher contrast and CNR in brain CT, especially for thin-slice images, when compared to FBP and HIR.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsBrainBrain DiseasesComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalObserver VariationRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureBrainCTIterative reconstructionRadiation dose

Identifiers

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.