ArticlePloS one2016
CT Pulmonary Angiography at Reduced Radiation Exposure and Contrast Material Volume Using Iterative Model Reconstruction and iDose4 Technique in Comparison to FBP.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Deep-learning based image reconstruction enables reduced dose CT pulmonary angiography with non-inferior image quality.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessment of Spectral Computed Tomography Image Quality and Detection of Lesions in the Liver Based on Image Reconstruction Algorithms and Virtual Tube Voltage.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Improved image quality in CT pulmonary angiography using deep learning-based image reconstruction.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ultra-low-dose spectral-detector computed tomography for the accurate quantification of pulmonary nodules: an anthropomorphic chest phantom study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- 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
- 90-kVp low-tube-voltage CT pulmonary angiography in combination with advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm: effects on radiation dose, image quality and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of pulmonary embolism.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess image quality of CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) at reduced radiation exposure (RD-CTPA) and contrast medium (CM) volume using two different iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms (iDose4 and iterative model reconstruction (IMR)) in comparison to filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND
methods52 patients (body weight < 100 kg, mean BMI: 23.9) with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) underwent RD-CTPA (tube voltage: 80 kV; mean CTDIvol: 1.9 mGy) using 40 ml CM. Data were reconstructed using FBP and two different IR algorithms (iDose4 and IMR). Subjective and objective image quality and conspicuity of PE were assessed in central, segmental, and subsegmental arteries.
resultsNoise reduction of 55% was achieved with iDose4 and of 85% with IMR compared to FBP. Contrast-to-noise ratio significantly increased with iDose4 and IMR compared to FBP (p<0.05). Subjective image quality was rated significantly higher at IMR reconstructions in comparison to iDose4 and FBP. Conspicuity of central and segmental PE significantly improved with the use of IMR. In subsegmental arteries, iDose4 was superior to IMR.
conclusionsCTPA at reduced radiation exposure and contrast medium volume is feasible with the use of IMR, which provides improved image quality and conspicuity of pulmonary embolism in central and segmental arteries.
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.