ArticleMedicine2017
Impact of iterative reconstruction vs. filtered back projection on image quality in 320-slice CT coronary angiography: Insights from the CORE320 multicenter study.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overview of dose optimization methods for patient safety in current CT technologies.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of image quality between hybrid iterative reconstruction and deep learning reconstruction in low dose abdominopelvic CT in low body mass index individuals.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A New Methodology for Selecting CT Scanning Parameters Depending on the Density of Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Review of Factors Affecting Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Coronary CTA Performed with Wide-Detector CT.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Review
- Assessment of Image Quality of Coronary CT Angiography Using Deep Learning-Based CT Reconstruction: Phantom and Patient Studies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical Feasibility of Deep Learning-Based Image Reconstruction on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparability of Pulmonary Nodule Size Measurements among Different Scanners and Protocols: Should Diameter Be Favorized over Volume?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Application of radiochromic gel dosimetry to commissioning of a megavoltage research linear accelerator for small-field animal irradiation studies.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Technical Note: kV-independent coronary calcium scoring: A phantom evaluation of score accuracy and potential radiation dose reduction.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Evaluation of peri-prosthetic radiolucent lines surrounding the cementless femoral stem using digital tomosynthesis with metal artifact reduction: a cadaveric study in comparison with radiography and computed tomography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020Article
- What Is the Power of Nonzero?Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iterative reconstruction has been shown to reduce image noise compared with traditional filtered back projection with quantum denoising software (FBP/QDS+) in CT imaging but few comparisons have been made in the same patients without the influence of interindividual factors. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction in 3-dimensional (AIDR 3D) and FBP/QDS+-based image reconstruction on image quality in the same patients.We randomly selected 100 patients enrolled in the coronary evaluation using 320-slice CT study who underwent CT coronary angiography using prospectively electrocardiogram triggered image acquisition with a 320-detector scanner. Both FBP/QDS+ and AIDR 3D reconstructions were performed using original data. Studies were blindly analyzed for image quality by measuring the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Image quality was assessed qualitatively using a 4-point scale.Median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 56-71) and 72% were men, median body mass index 27 (IQR: 24-30) and median calcium score 222 (IQR: 11-644). For all regions of interest, mean image noise was lower for AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ (31.69 vs. 34.37, P ≤ .001). SNR and CNR were significantly higher for AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ (16.28 vs. 14.64, P < .001 and 19.21 vs. 17.06, P < .001, respectively). Subjective (qualitative) image quality scores were better using AIDR 3D vs. FBP/QDS+ with means of 1.6 and 1.74, respectively (P ≤ .001).Assessed in the same individuals, iterative reconstruction decreased image noise and raised SNR/CNR as well as subjective image quality scores compared with traditional FBP/QDS+ in 320-slice CT coronary angiography at standard radiation doses.
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.