Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29218613›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Can We Perform CT of the Appendix with Less Than 1 mSv? A De-escalating Dose-simulation Study.

Ji Hoon Park, Jong-June Jeon, Sung Soo Lee, Amar C Dhanantwari, Ji Ye Sim, Hae Young Kim, Kyoung Ho Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Recent technologies in cardiac imaging.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ji Hoon ParkDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea.
Jong-June JeonDepartment of Statistics, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea.
Sung Soo LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea.
Amar C DhanantwariCT/AMI Clinical Science, Philips, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ji Ye SimDepartment of Radiology, Hanil General Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Hae Young KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea.
Kyoung Ho LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea. kholeemail@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically explore the lowest reasonably achievable radiation dose for appendiceal CT using an iterative reconstruction (IR) in young adults.

methodsWe prospectively included 30 patients who underwent 2.0-mSv CT for suspected appendicitis. From the helical projection data, 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CTs were generated using a low-dose simulation tool and the knowledge-based IR. We performed step-wise non-inferiority tests sequentially comparing 2.0-mSv CT with each of 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CT, with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.06. The primary end point was the pooled area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) for three abdominal and three non-abdominal radiologists.

resultsFor the abdominal radiologists, the non-inferiorities of 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CT to 2.0-mSv CT were sequentially accepted [pooled AUC difference: 2.0 vs. 0.5 mSv, 0.017 (95% CI: -0.016, 0.050)]. For the non-abdominal radiologists, the non-inferiorities of 1.5- and 1.0-mSv CT were accepted; however, the non-inferiority of 0.5-mSv CT could not be proved [pooled AUC difference: 2.0 vs. 1.0 mSv, -0.017 (-0.070, 0.035) and 2.0 vs. 0.5 mSv, 0.045 (-0.071, 0.161)].

conclusionThe 1.0-mSv appendiceal CT was non-inferior to 2.0-mSv CT in terms of diagnostic performance for both abdominal and non-abdominal radiologists; 0.5-mSv appendiceal CT was non-inferior only for abdominal radiologists. KEY POINTS: • For both abdominal and non-abdominal radiologists, 1.0-mSv appendiceal CT could be feasible. • The 0.5-mSv CT was non-inferior to 2.0-mSv CT only for expert abdominal radiologists. • Reader experience is an important factor affecting diagnostic impairment by low-dose CT.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAppendicitisAppendixFemaleHumansMaleRadiation DosageRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiography, AbdominalROC CurveTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung AdultAppendicitisProspective studiesROC curveSensitivity and specificityTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

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.