ArticleMedicine2016
Chest CT with iterative reconstruction algorithms for airway stent evaluation in patients with malignant obstructive tracheobronchial diseases.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Feasibility of Contrast-to-Noise Ratio on Measurements to Evaluate CT Image Quality in Terms of Low-Contrast Detailed Detectability.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Improved image quality of low-dose CT combining with iterative model reconstruction algorithm for response assessment in patients after treatment of malignant tumor.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the image quality of low-dose CT images with different reconstruction algorithms including filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR), and iterative model reconstruction (IMR) algorithms by comparison of routine dose images with FBP reconstruction, in patients with malignant obstructive tracheobronchial diseases.In total, 60 patients (59 ± 9.3 years, 37 males) with airway stent who are randomly assigned into 2 groups (routine-dose [RD] and low-dose [LD] group, 30 for each) underwent chest CT on a 256-slice CT (RD-group 120 kV, 250 mAs, LD-group 120 kV, 120 mAs). Images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm in the RD group, whereas with FBP, HIR and IMR algorithms in the LD group. Effective radiation dose of both groups was recorded. Image-quality assessment was performed by 2 radiologists according to structure demarcation near stents, artifacts, noise, and diagnostic confidence using a 5-point scale (1 [poor] to 5 [excellent]). Image noise and CNR were measured.The effective radiation dose of LD group was reduced 52.7% compared with the RD group (10.8 mSv ± 0.58 vs 5.1 mSv ± 0.26, P = 0.00). LD-IMR images enabled lowest image noise and best subjective image quality scores of all 4 indices, when compared with RD images reconstructed with FBP (RD-FBP) images (all P < 0.05). LD images reconstructed with and with HIR (LD-HIR) images enabled higher score in subjective image quality of artifacts (P < 0.05), whereas it showed no difference in the other subjective image-quality indices and image noise. Significant higher image noise and lower score of subjective image quality were observed in LD-FBP images (all P < 0.05).Both IMR and HIR improved image quality of low-dose chest CT by comparison of routine dose images reconstructed with FBP. Meanwhile, IMR allows further image quality improvement than HIR.
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.