ArticleMedicine2016
Comparison of image quality from filtered back projection, statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms in abdominal computed tomography.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Can 1.25 mm thin-section images generated with Deep Learning Image Reconstruction technique replace standard-of-care 5 mm images in abdominal CT?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- The impact of deep learning reconstruction in low dose computed tomography on the evaluation of interstitial lung disease.PloS one · 2023Article
- Sinogram-based deep learning image reconstruction technique in abdominal CT: image quality considerations.European radiology · 2021Article
- Validation of Deep-Learning Image Reconstruction for Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography Scan: Emphasis on Image Quality and Noise.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Finite Element Analysis-Based Vertebral Bone Strength Prediction Using MDCT Data: How Low Can We Go?Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Article
- Effect of iterative reconstruction techniques on image quality in low radiation dose chest CT: a phantom study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2019Article
- Clinical value of a new generation adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR-V) in the diagnosis of pulmonary nodule in low-dose chest CT.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Estimating detectability indexJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2018Article
- Iterative Reconstruction as a Method for Optimisation of Computed Tomography Procedures.Polish journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Article
- Impact of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction on the Correlation between Computed Tomography Quantification of a Low Lung Attenuation Area and Airway Measurements and Pulmonary Function Test Results in Normal Subjects.Korean journal of radiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the image noise-reducing abilities of iterative model reconstruction (IMR) with those of traditional filtered back projection (FBP) and statistical iterative reconstruction (IR) in abdominal computed tomography (CT) imagesThis institutional review board-approved retrospective study enrolled 103 patients; informed consent was waived. Urinary bladder (n = 83) and renal cysts (n = 44) were used as targets for evaluating imaging quality. Raw data were retrospectively reconstructed using FBP, statistical IR, and IMR. Objective image noise and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were calculated and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. Subjective image quality was evaluated and analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction.Objective analysis revealed a reduction in image noise for statistical IR compared with that for FBP, with no significant differences in SNR. In the urinary bladder group, IMR achieved up to 53.7% noise reduction, demonstrating a superior performance to that of statistical IR. IMR also yielded a significantly superior SNR to that of statistical IR. Similar results were obtained in the cyst group. Subjective analysis revealed reduced image noise for IMR, without inferior margin delineation or diagnostic confidence.IMR reduced noise and increased SNR to greater degrees than did FBP and statistical IR. Applying the IMR technique to abdominal CT imaging has potential for reducing the radiation dose without sacrificing imaging quality.
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.