ArticlePloS one2017
Submillisievert standard-pitch CT pulmonary angiography with ultra-low dose contrast media administration: A comparison to standard CT imaging.
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.
- Minimizing contrast media dose in CT pulmonary angiography with high-pitch technique.The British journal of radiology · 2020Trial
- High-pitch CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with ultra-low contrast medium volume for the detection of pulmonary embolism: a comparison with standard CTPA.European radiology · 2024Article
- Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Prognostic Role of Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA).Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Review
- Diagnosing pulmonary thromboembolism: Concerns and controversies.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Review
- Contrast agent dose reduction in computed tomography with deep learning using a conditional generative adversarial network.European radiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose saving comparing knowledge model-based iterative reconstruction on 80-kV CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with hybrid iterative reconstruction on 100-kV CT.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of submillisievert standard-pitch CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with ultra-low dose contrast media administration in comparison to standard CTPA. MATERIALS AND
methodsHundred patients (56 females, 44 males, mean age 69.6±15.4 years; median BMI: 26.6, IQR: 5.9) with suspected pulmonary embolism were examined with two different protocols (n = 50 each, group A: 80 kVp, ref. mAs 115, 25 ml of contrast medium; group B: 100 kVp, ref. mAs 150, 60 ml of contrast medium) using a dual-source CT equipped with automated exposure control. Objective and subjective image qualities, radiation exposure as well as the frequency of pulmonary embolism were evaluated.
resultsThere was no significant difference in subjective image quality scores between two groups regarding pulmonary arteries (p = 0.776), whereby the interobserver agreement was excellent (group A: k = 0.9; group B k = 1.0). Objective image analysis revealed that signal intensities (SI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the pulmonary arteries were equal or significantly higher in group B. There was no significant difference in the frequency of pulmonary embolism (p = 0.65). Using the low dose and low contrast media protocol resulted in a radiation dose reduction by 71.8% (2.4 vs. 0.7 mSv; p<0.001).
conclusionsThis 80 kVp standard pitch CTPA protocol with 25 ml contrast agent volume can obtain sufficient image quality to exclude or diagnose pulmonary emboli while reducing radiation dose by approximately 71%.
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.