ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Visual grading evaluation of commercially available metal artefact reduction techniques in hip prosthesis computed tomography.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photon-counting CT: image quality evaluation in patients with tibial plateau fracture treated with metallic osteosynthesis material.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Role of metal artifact reduction software in computed tomography angiography of lower limb metallic prosthesis: A retrospective study.World journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Imaging approach to prosthetic joint infection.Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- Experimental and clinical validation of an artificial intelligence metal artifact correction algorithm for low-dose following up CT of percutaneous vertebroplasty.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Image quality and metal artifact reduction in total hip arthroplasty CT: deep learning-based algorithm versus virtual monoenergetic imaging and orthopedic metal artifact reduction.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Improving radiation physics, tumor visualisation, and treatment quantification in radiotherapy with spectral or dual-energy CT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Review
- Reduction of metal artifacts from knee tumor prostheses on CT images: value of the single energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) algorithm.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Quantitative analysis of metal artifact reduction in total hip arthroplasty using virtual monochromatic imaging and orthopedic metal artifact reduction, a phantom study.Insights into imaging · 2021Article
- Metal Artifact Reduction in Head CT Performed for Patients with Deep Brain Stimulation Devices: Effectiveness of a Single-Energy Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2020Article
- Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer's metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2020Article
- Single-energy metal artifact reduction technique for reducing metallic coil artifacts on post-interventional cerebral CT and CT angiography.Neuroradiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate metal artefact reduction (MAR) techniques from four CT vendors in hip prosthesis imaging.
methodsBilateral hip prosthesis phantom images, obtained by using MAR algorithms for single-energy CT data or dual-energy CT (DECT) data and by monoenergetic reconstructions of DECT data, were visually graded by five radiologists using 10 image quality criteria. Comparisons between the MAR images and a reference image were performed for each scanner separately. Ordinal probit regression analysis was used.
resultsThe MAR algorithms in general improved the image quality based on the majority of the criteria (up to between 8/10 and 10/10) with a statistical improvement in overall image quality (p < 0.001). However, degradation of image quality, such as new artefacts, was seen in some cases. A few monoenergetic reconstruction series improved the image quality (p < 0.004) for one of the DECT scanners, but it was only improved for some of the criteria (up to 5/10). Monoenergetic reconstructions resulted in worse image quality for the majority of the criteria (up to 7/10) for the other DECT scanner.
conclusionThe MAR algorithms improved the image quality of the hip prosthesis CT images. However, since additional artefacts and degradation of image quality were seen in some cases, all algorithms should be carefully evaluated for every clinical situation. Monoenergetic reconstructions were in general concluded to be insufficient for reducing metal artefacts. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Qualitative evaluation of the usefulness of several MAR techniques from different vendors in CT imaging of hip prosthesis.
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.