ArticleScientific reports2017
Iterative reconstruction improves detection of in-stent restenosis by high-pitch dual-source coronary CT angiography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- SCCT 2021 Expert Consensus Document on Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomographyGuideline
- Stent evaluation by coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison between Iopamidol-370 and Ioversol-320 hypo-osmolar iodine concentration contrasts.The British journal of radiology · 2020Trial
- Assessing beam hardening artifacts in coronary stent imaging using different CT acquisition parameters on photon-counting detector computed tomography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Coronary computed tomography angiographic detection of in-stent restenosis via deep learning reconstruction: a feasibility study.European radiology · 2024Article
- [Coronary CT Angiography-Based Assessment of Coronary in-Stent Restenosis: A Journey through Past and Present Trends].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2024Review
- Cardiac CT blooming artifacts: clinical significance, root causes and potential solutions.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2022Review
- Technical development in cardiac CT: current standards and future improvements-a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies demonstrated that sinogram affirmed iterative reconstructions (SAFIRE) can produce higher-resolution images with greater robustness for the reduction of various imaging artefacts. Eighty-five patients were prospectively evaluated and underwent a high-pitch spiral acquisition CT scan. In-stent noise, signal-to-noise ratio(SNR), stent-lumen attenuation increase ratio (SAIR), and subjective image quality score were measured and compared between the SAFIRE and Filter back projection (FBP) reconstructions. Conventional coronary angiography served as the standard of reference. In 159 evaluated stents, SAFIRE was superior to FBP with regards to in-stent noise, SNR, SAIR, and image quality score. On per-stent analysis, SAFIRE vs. FBP reconstruction yielded 85% vs. 85%sensitivity, 89% vs. 78%specificity, 73% vs. 57%positive predictive value, 95% vs. 94%negative predictive value, and 0.87 vs. 0.82 area under curve, although these improvements did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). However, in the subgroup of small diameter stents (≤3 mm; n = 95), specificity(82% vs. 62%), positive predictive value(66% vs. 50%) and area under curve (0.81 vs. 0.70) improved significantly (P < 0.05) with SAFIRE. SAFIRE image reconstruction can thus improve the evaluation for ISR, especially in smaller stents.
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.