ArticlePloS one2017
Effect of reduced z-axis scan coverage on diagnostic performance and radiation dose of neck computed tomography in patients with suspected cervical abscess.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can leaded glasses protect the eye lens in patients undergoing neck computed tomography?Journal of clinical and translational research · 2021Article
- Optimization of the scan length of head traumas on the pediatric and adult CT scan and proposition of a new acquisition limit.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Different Simulated Low-Dose Levels in Patients with Suspected Cervical Abscess Using a Third-Generation Dual-Source CT Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Clinical CT underestimation of the percentage volume occupied by cysts in patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis.Clinical imaging · 2020Article
- Reduced scan range abdominopelvic CT in patients with suspected acute appendicitis - impact on diagnostic accuracy and effective radiation dose.BMC medical imaging · 2019Article
- Performance of sparse-view CT reconstruction with multi-directional gradient operators.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of reduced z-axis scan coverage on diagnostic performance and radiation dose of neck CT in patients with suspected cervical abscess.
methodsFifty-one patients with suspected cervical abscess were included and underwent contrast-enhanced neck CT on a 2nd or 3rd generation dual-source CT system. Image acquisition ranged from the aortic arch to the upper roof of the frontal sinuses (CTstd). Subsequently, series with reduced z-axis coverage (CTred) were reconstructed starting at the aortic arch up to the orbital floor. CTstd and CTred were independently assessed by two radiologists for the presence/absence of cervical abscesses and for incidental and alternative findings. In addition, diagnostic accuracy for the depiction of the cervical abscesses was calculated for both readers. Furthermore, DLP (dose-length-product), effective dose (ED) and organ doses were calculated and compared for CTred and CTstd, using a commercially available dose management platform.
resultsA total of 41 abscesses and 3 incidental/alternative findings were identified in CTstd. All abscesses and incidental/alternative findings could also be detected on CTred resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 1.0 for both readers. DLP, ED and organ doses of the brain, the eye lenses, the red bone marrow and the salivary glands of CTred were significantly lower than for CTstd (p<0.001).
conclusionsReducing z-axis coverage of neck CT allows for a significant reduction of effective dose and organ doses at similar diagnostic performance as compared to CTstd.
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.