ArticlePloS one
Indirect CT Venography at 80 kVp with Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction Compared to 120 kVp with Filtered Back Projection: Assessment of Image Quality and Radiation Dose.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative Approaches and Future Directions in the Management and Understanding of Varicose Veins: A Systematic Review.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2024Review
- Multisystem Imaging Manifestations of COVID-19, Part 1: Viral Pathogenesis and Pulmonary and Vascular System Complications.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of indirect computed tomographic venography (CTV) using 80 kVp with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and 120 kVp with filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study was approved by our institution and informed consent was waived. Sixty-one consecutive patients (M: F = 27: 34, mean age 60 ± 16, mean BMI 23.6 ± 3.6 kg/m2) underwent pelvic and lower extremity CTVs [group A (n = 31, 120 kVp, reconstructed with FBP) vs. group B (n = 30, 80 kVp, reconstructed with SAFIRE)]. The vascular enhancement, image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were compared. Subjective image analysis for image quality and noise was performed by two radiologists. Radiation dose was compared between the two groups.
resultsCompared with group A, higher mean vascular enhancement was observed in the group B (group A vs. B, 118.8 ± 15.7 HU vs. 178.6 ± 39.6 HU, p < 0.001), as well as image noise (12.0 ± 3.8 HU vs. 17.9 ± 6.1 HU, p < 0.001) and CNR (5.1 ± 1.9 vs. 7.6 ± 3.0, p < 0.001). The SNRs were not significantly different in both groups (11.2 ± 4.8 vs. 10.8 ± 3.7, p = 0.617). There was no significant difference in subjective image quality between the two groups (all p > 0.05). The subjective image noise was higher in the group B (p = 0.036 in reader 1, p = 0.005 in reader 2). The inter-observer reliability for assessing subjective image quality was good (ICC 0.746~0.784, p < 0.001). The mean CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and mean dose length product (DLP) were significantly lower in group B than group A [CTDIvol, 6.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.2 ± 2.2 mGy (p < 0.001); DLP, 499.1 ± 116.0 vs. 133.1 ± 45.7 mGy × cm (p < 0.001)].
conclusionsCTV using 80 kVp combined with SAFIRE provides lower radiation dose and improved CNR compared to CTV using 120 kVp with FBP.
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.