ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Interleaving cerebral CT perfusion with neck CT angiography. Part II: clinical implementation and image quality.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating Supply Chain Disruptions of Iodinated Contrast Agent for Neuroimaging and How Business Intelligence Can Help the Decision Process.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Single rotation CTA of extracranial carotids integrated with cerebral CTP provides sufficient quality for decision making in patients with ischaemic stroke.The neuroradiology journal · 2021Article
- A "one-stop-shop" 4D CTA protocol using 320-row CT for advanced imaging in acute ischemic stroke: a technical note.European radiology · 2019Article
- Robust Segmentation of the Full Cerebral Vasculature in 4D CT of Suspected Stroke Patients.Scientific reports · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFeasibility evaluation of the One-Step Stroke Protocol, which is an interleaved cerebral computed tomography perfusion (CTP) and neck volumetric computed tomography angiography (vCTA) scanning technique using wide-detector computed tomography, and to assess the image quality of vCTA.
methodsTwenty patients with suspicion of acute ischaemic stroke were prospectively scanned and evaluated with a head and neck CTA and with the One-Step Stroke Protocol. Arterial enhancement and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in the carotid arteries was assessed. Three observers scored artefacts and image quality of the cervical arteries. The total z-coverage was evaluated.
resultsMean enhancement in the carotid bifurcation was rated higher in the vCTA (595 ± 164 HU) than CTA (441 ± 117 HU). CNR was rated higher in vCTA. Image quality scores showed no significant difference in the region of the carotid bifurcation between vCTA and CTA. Lower neck image quality scores were slightly lower for vCTA due to artefacts, although not rated as diagnostically relevant. In ten patients, the origin of the left common carotid artery was missed by 1.6 ± 0.8 cm. Mean patient height was 1.8 ± 0.09 m. Carotid bifurcation and origin of vertebral arteries were covered in all patients.
conclusionsThe One-Step Stroke Protocol is feasible with good diagnostic image quality of vCTA, although full z-coverage is limited in tall patients. KEY POINTS: • Interleaving cerebral CTP with neck CTA (One-Step Stroke Protocol) is feasible • Diagnostic quality of One-Step Stroke Protocol neck CTA is similar to conventional CTA • One-Step Stroke Protocol neck CTA suffers from streak artefacts in the lower neck • A limitation of One-Step Stroke Protocol CTA is lack of coverage in tall patients • Precise planning of One-Step Stroke Protocol neck CTA is necessary in tall patients.
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.