ReviewJournal of clinical imaging science2017
The Utility of Dual Energy Computed Tomography in Musculoskeletal Imaging.
Review in Journal of clinical imaging science, 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.
- CT in musculoskeletal imaging: still helpful and for what?Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- Clumpy artifacts can be differentiated from tophi with DECT: comparison between gout-free and gouty patients.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Dual-Energy Lung Perfusion in Portal Venous Phase CT-A Comparison with the Pulmonary Arterial Phase.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Initial experience with dual-energy computed tomography-guided bone biopsies of bone lesions that are occult on monoenergetic CT.Skeletal radiology · 2019Article
- The effect of tube voltage combination on image artefact and radiation dose in dual-source dual-energy CT: comparison between conventional 80/140 kV and 80/150 kV plus tin filter for gout protocol.European radiology · 2019Article
- Death by hanging: a retrospective case-control investigation of the intervertebral disc vacuum phenomenon on PMCT.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2018Article
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
The objective of this article is to review the mechanisms, advantages and disadvantages of dual energy computed tomography (DECT) over conventional tomography (CT) in musculoskeletal imaging as DECT provides additional information about tissue composition and artifact reduction. This provides clinical utility in detection of urate crystals, bone marrow edema, reduction of beam hardening metallic artifact, and ligament and tendon analysis.
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.