ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Assessment of chest CT at CTDI
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application Value of Intelligent Quick Magnetic Resonance for Accelerating Brain MR Scanning and Improving Image Quality in Acute Ischemic StrokeCurrent medical imaging · 2025Article
- Cycle-Consistent Generative Adversarial Network: Effect on Radiation Dose Reduction and Image Quality Improvement in Ultralow-Dose CT for Evaluation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Observer Performance for Detection of Pulmonary Nodules at Chest CT over a Large Range of Radiation Dose Levels.Radiology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of three-dimensional iterative image reconstruction in virtual monochromatic imaging at 40 kilo-electron volts: phantom and clinical studies to assess the image noise and image quality in comparison with other reconstruction techniques.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Application of Vendor-Neutral Iterative Reconstruction Technique to Pediatric Abdominal Computed Tomography.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Volumetric assessment of solid pulmonary nodules on ultralow-dose CT: a phantom study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the image quality of chest CT reconstructed with image-based iterative reconstruction (SafeCT; MedicVision
methodsIn an institutional review board-approved study, 25 patients gave written informed consent for acquisition of three reduced dose (0.25-, 0.4- and 0.8-mGy) chest CT after standard of care CT (8 mGy) on a 64-channel multidetector CT (MDCT) and reconstructed with SafeCT, ASIR and MBIR. Two board-certified thoracic radiologists evaluated images from the lowest to the highest dose of the reduced dose CT series and subsequently for standard of care CT.
resultsOut of the 182 detected lesions, the missed lesions were 35 at 0.25, 24 at 0.4 and 9 at 0.8 mGy with SafeCT, ASIR and MBIR, respectively. The most missed lesions were non-calcified lung nodules (NCLNs) 25/112 (<5 mm) at 0.25, 18/112 (<5 mm) at 0.4 and 3/112 (<4 mm) at 0.8 mGy. There were 78%, 84% and 97% lung nodules detected at 0.25, 0.4 and 0.8 mGy, respectively regardless of iterative reconstruction techniques (IRTs), Most mediastinum structures were not sufficiently seen at 0.25-0.8 mGy.
conclusionNCLNs can be missed in chest CT at CTDI
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.