ArticleMedicine2016
Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of FBP, ASiR, and MBIR reconstruction during CT angiography in the evaluation of a vessel phantom with calcified stenosis in a distal superficial femoral artery in a cadaver extremity.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of Low-Dose and Low-Contrast Media Volume Approach in Computed Tomography Cardiovascular Imaging Reconstructed with Model-Based Algorithm.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Assessing the effect of scanning parameter on the size and density of pulmonary nodules: a phantom study.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- The usefulness of full-iterative reconstruction algorithm for the visualization of cystic artery on CT angiography.Japanese journal of radiology · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) or model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) improves the diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for small-vessel calcified lesions relative to filtered back projection (FBP) using cadaver extremities and a calcified stenosis phantom.
methodsA cadaver was used in accordance with our institutional regulations, and a calcified stenosis phantom simulating 4 grades of stenosis was prepared. The phantom was inserted within the distal superficial femoral artery of the cadaver leg. Ten CT images per reconstruction type and stenosis grade were acquired using a 64-slice multidetector-row CTA.As an objective measurement, the first and second derivatives of the CT value function profiles were calculated. As a subjective measurement, 2 blinded reviewers measured the stenosis ratio using a quantitative scale. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate the data.
resultsObjective measurements of both 25% and 50% stenosis differed significantly (P < 0.01) between MBIR (25/50%: 25.80/50.30 ± 3.88/3.86%) and FBP (25/50%: 35.60/83.80 ± 3.44/26.10%), whereas significant differences were not observed between ASiR and FBP.Reviewer 2's subjective measurements of 25% stenosis differed significantly (P < 0.01) between MBIR (35.13 ± 3.25%) and ASiR (40.89 ± 3.14%), and the measurements of 50% stenosis differed significantly (P < 0.01) between MBIR (reviewers 1/2, 62.36/54.78 ± 2.78/4.96%) and FBP (reviewers 1/2, 62.36/74.84 ± 2.78/18.10%). Significant differences in the subjective measurements were not observed between ASiR and FBP.
conclusionMBIR improves the diagnostic performance of CTA for small-vessel calcified lesions relative to FBP.
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.