ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Prospective Evaluation of Reduced Dose Computed Tomography for the Detection of Low-Contrast Liver Lesions: Direct Comparison with Concurrent Standard Dose Imaging.
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 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- CT radiation dose reduction in patients with total hip arthroplasties using model-based iterative reconstruction and orthopaedic metal artefact reduction.Skeletal radiology · 2019Trial
- Deep learning in differentiating the colorectal cancer combined with hepatic enhancing nodules: liver metastases vs hemangiomas.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Impact of Imaging Review and Multidisciplinary Discussion During Hepatobiliary Tumor Board: A Prospective Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Exploring the Low-Dose Limit for Focal Hepatic Lesion Detection with a Deep Learning-Based CT Reconstruction Algorithm: A Simulation Study on Patient Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Low-dose liver CT: image quality and diagnostic accuracy of deep learning image reconstruction algorithm.European radiology · 2024Article
- A minimum SNR criterion for computed tomography object detection in the projection domain.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Unenhanced abdominal low-dose CT reconstructed with deep learning-based image reconstruction: image quality and anatomical structure depiction.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Image quality in liver CT: low-dose deep learning vs standard-dose model-based iterative reconstructions.European radiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of reduced-dose computed tomography enterography with model-based iterative reconstruction in pediatric Crohn's disease patients.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Reconstruction of three-dimensional tomographic patient models for radiation dose modulation in CT from two scout views using deep learning.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Apparent Noise on CT Images Using Moving Average Filters.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Deep learning image reconstruction for improvement of image quality of abdominal computed tomography: comparison with hybrid iterative reconstruction.Japanese journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Simulated Radiation Dose Reduction in Whole-Body CT on a 3rd Generation Dual-Source Scanner: An Intraindividual Comparison.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Dose and blending fraction quantification for adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction based on low-contrast detectability in abdomen CT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Detection of Colorectal Hepatic Metastases Is Superior at Standard Radiation Dose CT versus Reduced Dose CT.Radiology · 2019Article
- How Do Cancer-Specific Computed Tomography Protocols Compare With the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry? An Analysis of Computed Tomography Dose at 2 Cancer Centers.Journal of computer assisted tomographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of reduced-dose (RD) contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) with standard-dose (SD) CECT for detection of low-contrast liver lesions.
methodsSeventy adults with non-liver primary malignancies underwent abdominal SD-CECT immediately followed by RD-CECT, aggressively targeted at 60-70 % dose reduction. SD series were reconstructed using FBP. RD series were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR (Veo). Three readers-blinded to clinical history and comparison studies-reviewed all series, identifying liver lesions ≥4 mm. Non-blinded review by two experienced abdominal radiologists-assessing SD against available clinical and radiologic information-established the reference standard.
resultsRD-CECT mean effective dose was 2.01 ± 1.36 mSv (median, 1.71), a 64.1 ± 8.8 % reduction. Pooled per-patient performance data were (sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy) 0.91/0.78/0.60/0.96/0.81 for SD-FBP compared with RD-FBP 0.79/0.75/0.54/0.91/0.76; RD-ASIR 0.84/0.75/0.56/0.93/0.78; and RD-MBIR 0.84/0.68/0.49/0.92/0.72. ROC AUC values were 0.896/0.834/0.858/0.854 for SD-FBP/RD-FBP/RD-ASIR/RD-MBIR, respectively. RD-FBP (P = 0.002) and RD-MBIR (P = 0.032) AUCs were significantly lower than those of SD-FBP; RD-ASIR was not (P = 0.052). Reader confidence was lower for all RD series (P < 0.001) compared with SD-FBP, especially when calling patients entirely negative.
conclusionsAggressive CT dose reduction resulted in inferior diagnostic performance and reader confidence for detection of low-contrast liver lesions compared to SD. Relative to RD-ASIR, RD-FBP showed decreased sensitivity and RD-MBIR showed decreased specificity. KEY POINTS: • Reduced-dose CECT demonstrates inferior diagnostic performance for detecting low-contrast liver lesions. • Reader confidence is lower with reduced-dose CECT compared to standard-dose CECT. • Overly aggressive dose reduction may result in misdiagnosis, regardless of reconstruction algorithm. • Careful consideration of perceived risks versus benefits of dose reduction is crucial.
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.