ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Impact of iterative reconstructions on objective and subjective emphysema assessment with computed tomography: a prospective study.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Computed Tomography Densitometry for the Assessment of Emphysema in Clinical Trials: A Position Paper from the Fleischner Society.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of lung image quality between CT Ark and Brilliance 64 CT during COVID-19.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Potential for dose reduction in CT emphysema densitometry with post-scan noise reduction: a phantom study.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Emphysema quantification using hybrid versus model-based generations of iterative reconstruction: SAFIRE versus ADMIRE.Medicine · 2019Article
- Impact of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction on the Correlation between Computed Tomography Quantification of a Low Lung Attenuation Area and Airway Measurements and Pulmonary Function Test Results in Normal Subjects.Korean journal of radiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.