Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27069813›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

Sub-milliSievert ultralow-dose CT colonography with iterative model reconstruction technique.

Lukas Lambert, Petr Ourednicek, Jan Briza, Walter Giepmans, Jiri Jahoda, Lukas Hruska, Jan Danes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. EXTRACOLONIC FINDINGS-IDENTIFICATION AT LOW-DOSE CTC.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2021
    Article
  2. Computed tomography colonography and radiation risk: How low can we go?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer Using CT Colonography.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2017
    Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Lukas LambertDepartment of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague , Prague , Czech Republic.
Petr OurednicekDepartment of Imaging Methods, St. Anne's University Hospital in Brno , Brno , Czech Republic.
Jan BrizaFirst Department of Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague , Prague , Czech Republic.
Walter GiepmansClinical Science & Application Computed Tomography, Philips Healthcare , Best , The Netherlands.
Jiri JahodaDepartment of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague , Prague , Czech Republic.
Lukas HruskaDepartment of Imaging Methods, St. Anne's University Hospital in Brno , Brno , Czech Republic.
Jan DanesDepartment of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague , Prague , Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical and diagnostic performance of sub-milliSievert ultralow-dose (ULD) CT colonograpy (CTC) in the detection of colonic and extracolonic lesions. Materials and Methods. CTC with standard dose (SD) and ULD acquisitions of 64 matched patients, half of them with colonic findings, were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid (HIR) and iterative model reconstruction techniques (IMR). Image noise in six colonic segments, in the left psoas muscle and aorta were measured. Image quality of the left adrenal gland and of the colon in the endoscopic and 2D view was rated on a five point Likert scale by two observers, who also completed the reading of CTC for colonic and extracolonic findings. Results. The mean radiation dose estimate was 4.1 ± 1.4 mSv for SD and 0.86 ± 0.17 mSv for ULD for both positions (p < 0.0001). In ULD-IMR, SD-IMR and SD-HIR, the endoluminal noise was decreased in all colonic segments compared to SD-FBP (p < 0.001). There were 27 small (6-9 mm) and 17 large (≥10 mm) colonic lesions that were classified as sessile polyps (n = 38), flat lesions (n = 3), or as a mass (n = 3). Per patient sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 and 0.93 for ULD-FBP, 0.97 and 0.97 for ULD-HIR, 0.97 and 1.0 for ULD-IMR. Per polyp sensitivity was 0.84 for ULD-FBP, 0.98 for ULD-HIR, 0.98 for ULD-IMR. Significantly less extracolonic findings were detected in ULD-FBP and ULD-HIR, but in the E4 category by C-RADS (potentially important findings), the detection was similar. Conclusion. Both HIR and IMR are suitable for sub-milliSievert ULD CTC without sacrificing diagnostic performance of the study.

Indexed as

CT colonographyIterative reconstruction techniqueLow-dosePolyp

Identifiers

PMID27069813
PMCPMC4824919

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.