ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2016
Low kilovoltage peak (kVp) with an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm in computed tomography urography: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose in computed tomography urography (CTU) images acquired with a low kilovoltage peak (kVp) in combination with an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) algorithm.
methodsA total of 45 subjects (18 women, 27 men) who underwent CTU with kV assist software for automatic selection of the optimal kVp were included and divided into two groups (A and B) based on the kVp and image reconstruction algorithm: group A consisted of patients who underwent CTU with a 80 or 100 kVp and whose images were reconstructed with the 50% ASiR algorithm (n=32); group B consisted of patients who underwent CTU with a 120 kVp and whose images were reconstructed with the filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm (n=13). The images were separately reconstructed with volume rendering (VR) and maximum intensity projection (MIP). Finally, the image quality was evaluated using an image score, CT attenuation, image noise, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the renal pelvis-to-abdominal visceral fat and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the renal pelvis. The radiation dose was assessed using volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP) and effective dose (ED).
resultsFor groups A and B, the subjective image scores for the VR reconstruction images were 3.9±0.4 and 3.8±0.4, respectively, while those for the MIP reconstruction images were 3.8±0.4 and 3.6±0.6, respectively. No significant difference was found (p>0.05) between the two groups' image scores for either the VR or MIP reconstruction images. Additionally, the inter-reviewer image scores did not significantly differ (p>0.05). The mean attenuation of the bilateral renal pelvis in group A was significantly higher than that in group B (271.4±57.6 vs. 221.8±35.3 HU, p<0.05), whereas the image noise in group A was significantly lower than that in group B (7.9±2.1 vs. 10.5±2.3 HU, p<0.05). The CNR and SNR in group A were both significantly higher than those in group B (53.61±24.74 vs. 32.30±6.52 for CNR; 38.13±19.86 vs. 21.76±4.85 for SNR; all p<0.05). The CTDIvol, DLP and ED in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (9.26±2.77 vs. 16.19±5.60 mGy for CTDIvol; 368.86±119.38 vs. 674.38±239.37 mGy×cm
conclusionsThe low kVp CTU images with 50% ASiR reconstruction exhibit sufficient image quality and facilitate up to a 44% radiation dose reduction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27725867PMC5040685What 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.