ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Prototype metal artefact reduction algorithm in flat panel computed tomography - evaluation in patients undergoing transarterial hepatic radioembolisation.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a prototype metal artifact reduction algorithm for cone beam CT in patients undergoing radioembolization.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ultra-low-dose cone-beam CT compared to standard dose in the assessment for acute fractures.Skeletal radiology · 2022Article
- Frequency and causes of delayed diagnosis of visceral artery pseudoaneurysms with CT: Lessons learned.European journal of radiology open · 2020Article
- Trapezium fracture: a common clinical mimic of scaphoid fracture.Emergency radiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of an on-site prototype metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithm in cone-beam CT-catheter-arteriography (CBCT-CA) in patients undergoing transarterial radioembolisation (RE) of hepatic masses. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ethical board approved retrospective study of 29 patients (mean 63.7±13.7 years, 11 female), including 16 patients with arterial metallic coils, undergoing CBCT-CA (8s scan, 200 degrees rotation, 397 projections). Image reconstructions with and without prototype MAR algorithm were evaluated quantitatively (streak-artefact attenuation changes) and qualitatively (visibility of hepatic parenchyma and vessels) in near- (<1cm) and far-field (>3cm) of artefact sources (metallic coils and catheters). Quantitative and qualitative measurements of uncorrected and MAR corrected images and different artefact sources were compared
resultsQuantitative evaluation showed significant reduction of near- and far-field streak-artefacts with MAR for both artefact sources (p<0.001), while remaining stable for unaffected organs (all p>0.05). Inhomogeneities of attenuation values were significantly higher for metallic coils compared to catheters (p<0.001) and decreased significantly for both after MAR (p<0.001). Qualitative image scores were significantly improved after MAR (all p<0.003) with by trend higher artefact degrees for metallic coils compared to catheters.
conclusionIn patients undergoing CBCT-CA for transarterial RE, prototype MAR algorithm improves image quality in proximity of metallic coil and catheter artefacts. KEY POINTS: • Metal objects cause artefacts in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. • These artefacts can be corrected by metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms. • Corrected images show significantly better visibility of nearby hepatic vessels and tissue. • Better visibility may facilitate image interpretation, save time and radiation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28710583What 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.