Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27847999›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

Impact of iterative reconstructions on objective and subjective emphysema assessment with computed tomography: a prospective study.

Steve P Martin, Joanna Gariani, Anne-Lise Hachulla, Diomidis Botsikas, Dan Adler, Wolfram Karenovics, Christoph D Becker, Xavier Montet

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Steve P MartinDivision of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Steve.Martin@hcuge.ch.
Joanna GarianiDivision of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Anne-Lise HachullaDivision of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Diomidis BotsikasDivision of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dan AdlerDivision of Pneumology, Department of Internal Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Wolfram KarenovicsDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christoph D BeckerDivision of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Xavier MontetDivision of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo prospectively evaluate the impact of iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms on pulmonary emphysema assessment as compared to filtered back projection (FBP).

methodsOne hundred ten unenhanced chest CT examinations were obtained on two different scanners. Image reconstructions from a single acquisition were done with different levels of IR and compared with FBP on the basis of the emphysema index (EI), lung volume and voxel densities. Objective emphysema assessment was performed with 3D software provided by each manufacturer. Subjective assessment of emphysema was performed as a blinded evaluation. Quantitative and subjective values were compared using repeated ANOVA analysis, Bland-Altman analysis and Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W).

resultsLung volumes are stable on both units, throughout all IR levels (P ≥ 0.057). EI significantly decreases on both units with the use of any level of IR (P < 0.001). The highest levels of IR are responsible for a decrease of 33-36 % of EI. Significant differences in minimal lung density are found between the different algorithms (P < 0.003). Intra- and inter-reader concordance for emphysema characterisation is generally good (W ≥ 0.77 and W ≥ 0.86, respectively).

conclusionsBoth commercially available IR algorithms used in this study significantly changed EI but did not alter visual assessment compared to standard FBP reconstruction at identical radiation exposure. KEY POINTS: • Objective quantification of pulmonary emphysema is sensitive to iterative reconstructions • Subjective evaluation of pulmonary emphysema is not influenced by iterative reconstructions • Consistency in reconstruction algorithms is of paramount importance for pulmonary emphysema monitoring.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesPulmonary EmphysemaRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedSoftwareTomography, X-Ray ComputedIterative reconstructionMultidetector computed tomographyPulmonary emphysemaQuantitative analysisVisual assessment

Identifiers

PMID27847999
OpenAlexW2551584279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.