Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27123700›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

Visual grading evaluation of commercially available metal artefact reduction techniques in hip prosthesis computed tomography.

Karin M Andersson, Eva Norrman, Håkan Geijer, Wolfgang Krauss, Yang Cao, Johan Jendeberg, Mats Geijer, Mats Lidén, Per Thunberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2020
    Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Karin M Andersson1 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Eva Norrman1 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Håkan Geijer2 School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Wolfgang Krauss2 School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Yang Cao4 Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Johan Jendeberg2 School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Mats Geijer3 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Mats Lidén3 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Per Thunberg1 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ArtifactsHip ProsthesisMetalsPhantoms, ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsHip JointHumansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityMetals

Identifiers

PMID27123700
PMCPMC12187092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.