ArticlePolish journal of radiology2015
Comparison Between Prospectively Electrocardiogram-Gated High-Pitch Mode and Retrospectively Electrocardiogram-Gated Mode for Dual-Source CT Coronary Angiography.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 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.
- Trial
- Anatomical Evaluation of the Pulmonary Veins and the Left Atrium Using Computed Tomography Before Catheter Ablation: Reproducibility of Measurements.Polish journal of radiology · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to report the image quality, relationship between heart rate and image quality, amount of contrast agent given to the patients and radiation doses in coronary CT angiography (CTA) obtained by using high-pitch prospectively ECG-gated "Flash Spiral" technique (method A) or retrospectively ECG-gated technique (method B) using 128×2-slice dual-source CT. MATERIAL/
methodsA total of 110 patients who were evaluated with method A and method B technique with a 128×2-detector dual-source CT device were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups based on their heart rates during the procedure, and a relationship between heart rate and image quality were evaluated. The relationship between heart rate, gender and radiation dose received by the patients was compared.
resultsA total of 1760 segments were evaluated in terms of image quality. Comparison of the relationship between heart rate and image quality revealed a significant difference between heart rate <60 beats/min group and >75 beats/min group whereas <60 beats/min and 60-75 beats/min groups did not differ significantly. The average effective dose for coronary CTA was calculated as 1.11 mSv (0.47-2.01 mSv) for method A and 8.22 mSv (2.19-12.88 mSv) for method B.
conclusionsMethod A provided high quality images with doses as low as <1 mSv in selected patients who have low heart rates with a high negative predictive value to rule out coronary artery disease. Although method B increases the amount of effective dose, it provides high diagnostic quality images for patients who have a high heart rate and arrhythmia which makes it is difficult to obtain images.
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.