Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27165140›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

Single- and dual-energy CT of the abdomen: comparison of radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source CT.

Julian L Wichmann, Andrew D Hardie, U Joseph Schoepf, Lloyd M Felmly, Jonathan D Perry, Akos Varga-Szemes, Stefanie Mangold, Damiano Caruso, Christian Canstein, Thomas J Vogl and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Dual-energy CT applications in musculoskeletal disorders.The British journal of radiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Quantum iterative reconstruction on a photon-counting detector CT improves the quality of hepatocellular carcinoma imaging.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

11 authors.

Julian L WichmannDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Andrew D HardieDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
U Joseph SchoepfDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. schoepf@musc.edu.
Lloyd M FelmlyDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Jonathan D PerryDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Akos Varga-SzemesDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Stefanie MangoldDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Damiano CarusoDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Christian CansteinDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Thomas J VoglDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Carlo N De CeccoDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) abdominal CT examinations in matched patient cohorts regarding differences in radiation dose and image quality performed with second- and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT).

methodsWe retrospectively analysed 200 patients (100 male, 100 female; mean age 61.2 ± 13.5 years, mean body mass index 27.5 ± 3.8 kg/m

resultsThe effective normalised radiation dose was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in groups C (6.2 ± 2.0 mSv) and D (5.3 ± 1.9 mSv, P = 0.103) compared to groups A (8.8 ± 2.3 mSv) and B (9.7 ± 2.4 mSv, P = 0.102). Dose-independent FOM-CNR peaked for liver, kidney, and portal vein measurements (all P ≤ 0.0285) in group D. Subjective image quality and reader confidence were consistently rated as excellent in all groups (all ≥1.53 out of 5).

conclusionsWith both DSCT generations, abdominal DECT can be routinely performed without radiation dose penalty compared to SECT, while third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency. KEY POINTS: • Dual-source CT (DSCT) allows for single- and dual-energy image acquisition. • Dual-energy acquisition does not increase the radiation dose in abdominal DSCT. • Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency compared to second-generation DSCT. • Dose-independent figure-of-merit image contrast was highest with third-generation dual-energy DSCT. • Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency for SECT and DECT.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageAbdomenAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiography, AbdominalReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung AdultAbdomenDiagnostic imagingMultidetector computed tomographyRadiation dosageRetrospective study

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.