ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Iterative metal artefact reduction (MAR) in postsurgical chest CT: comparison of three iMAR-algorithms.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular imaging in children with cardiac implantable electronic devices.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- Opportunistic Diagnostics of Dental Implants in Routine Clinical Photon-Counting CT Acquisitions.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Point-of-Care Virtual Planning and 3D Printing in Facial Trauma: A 10-Year Experience at a Single Institution.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Optimization of photon counting CT for cardiac imaging in patients with left ventricular assist devices: An in-depth assessment of metal artifacts.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Deep-Learning-Based Algorithm for Detecting and Classifying Metallic Implants in Abdominal and Spinal CT Topograms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The role of innovative modeling and imaging techniques in improving outcomes in patients with LVAD.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Impact of Different Metal Artifact Reduction Techniques on Attenuation Correction of Normal Organs inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Low-dose CT with tin filter combined with iterative metal artefact reduction for guiding lung biopsy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Validation of computed tomography angiography using mean arterial pressure gradient as a reference in stented superior mesenteric artery.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Article
- A Novel Metallic Artifact Reduction Technique When Using a Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Metallic Antenna to Ablate Malignant Pulmonary Nodules: A Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Article
- Iterative metal artifact reduction in aortic CTA after Onyx®-embolization.European journal of radiology open · 2020Article
- Methodology for Measurement ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Impact of different metal artifact reduction techniques on attenuation correction in 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of three novel iterative metal artefact (iMAR) algorithms on image quality and artefact degree in chest CT of patients with a variety of thoracic metallic implants.
methods27 postsurgical patients with thoracic implants who underwent clinical chest CT between March and May 2015 in clinical routine were retrospectively included. Images were retrospectively reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with three iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1 = Cardiac algorithm, iMAR-Algo2 = Pacemaker algorithm and iMAR-Algo3 = ThoracicCoils algorithm). The subjective and objective image quality was assessed.
resultsAveraged over all artefacts, artefact degree was significantly lower for the iMAR-Algo1 (58.9 ± 48.5 HU), iMAR-Algo2 (52.7 ± 46.8 HU) and the iMAR-Algo3 (51.9 ± 46.1 HU) compared with WFBP (91.6 ± 81.6 HU, p < 0.01 for all). All iMAR reconstructed images showed significantly lower artefacts (p < 0.01) compared with the WFPB while there was no significant difference between the iMAR algorithms, respectively. iMAR-Algo2 and iMAR-Algo3 reconstructions decreased mild and moderate artefacts compared with WFBP and iMAR-Algo1 (p < 0.01).
conclusionAll three iMAR algorithms led to a significant reduction of metal artefacts and increase in overall image quality compared with WFBP in chest CT of patients with metallic implants in subjective and objective analysis. The iMARAlgo2 and iMARAlgo3 were best for mild artefacts. IMARAlgo1 was superior for severe artefacts. Advances in knowledge: Iterative MAR led to significant artefact reduction and increase image-quality compared with WFBP in CT after implementation of thoracic devices. Adjusting iMAR-algorithms to patients' metallic implants can help to improve image quality in CT.
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.