Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29076752›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

Contrast enhancement in abdominal computed tomography: influence of photon energy of different scanners.

Narumi Taguchi, Seitaro Oda, Takeshi Nakaura, Daisuke Utsunomiya, Yoshinori Funama, Masanori Imuta, Hideaki Yuki, Yasunori Nagayama, Masafumi Kidoh, Kenichiro Hirata and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Narumi Taguchi1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Seitaro Oda1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Takeshi Nakaura1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Daisuke Utsunomiya1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Yoshinori Funama2 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Masanori Imuta1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Hideaki Yuki1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Yasunori Nagayama1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Masafumi Kidoh1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Kenichiro Hirata1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Yuji Iyama1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Tomohiro Namimoto1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Noriyuki Kai3 Department of Central Radiology, Kumamoto University Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Masahiro Hatemura3 Department of Central Radiology, Kumamoto University Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Yasuyuki Yamashita1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Kumamoto University · JPKumamoto Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDifferent CT scanners have different X-ray spectra and photon energies indicating that contrast enhancement vary among scanners. However, this issue has not been fully validated; therefore, we performed phantom and clinical studies to assess this difference.

methodsTwo scanners were used: scanner-A and scanner-B. In the phantom study, we compared the contrast enhancement between the scanners at tube voltage peaks of 80, 100 and 120 kVp. Then, we calculated the effective energies of the two CT scanners. In the clinical study, 40 patients underwent abdominal scanning with scanner-A and another 40 patients with scanner-B, with each group using the same scanning protocol. The contrast enhancement of abdominal organs was assessed quantitatively (based on the absolute difference between the attenuation of unenhanced scans and contrast-enhanced scans) and qualitatively. A two-tailed independent Student's t-test and or the Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the discrepancies.

resultsIn the phantom study, contrast enhancement for scanner-B was 36.9, 32.6 and 30.8% higher than that for scanner-A at 80, 100 and 120 kVp, respectively. The effective energies were higher for scanner-A than for scanner-B. In the quantitative analysis for the clinical study, scanner-B yielded significantly better contrast enhancement of the hepatic parenchyma, pancreas, kidney, portal vein and inferior vena cava compared with that of scanner-A. The mean visual scores for contrast enhancement were also significantly higher on images obtained by scanner-B than those by scanner-A.

conclusionThere were significant differences in contrast enhancement of the abdominal organs between the compared CT scanners from two different vendors even at the same scanning and contrast parameters. Advances in knowledge: Awareness of the impact of different X-ray energies on the resultant attenuation of contrast material is important when interpreting clinical CT images.

Indexed as

Radiography, AbdominalTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhantoms, ImagingRadiographic Image EnhancementRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29076752
PMCPMC5966206
OpenAlexW2766824024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.