Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29312867›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2017

Quantitative assessment of nonsolid pulmonary nodule volume with computed tomography in a phantom study.

Marios A Gavrielides, Benjamin P Berman, Mark Supanich, Kurt Schultz, Qin Li, Nicholas Petrick, Rongping Zeng, Jenifer Siegelman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Marios A GavrielidesDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, , Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Benjamin P BermanDivision of Radiological Health, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Mark SupanichDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kurt SchultzToshiba Medical Research Institute USA, Inc., Center for Medical Research and Development, Illinois, USA.
Qin LiDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, , Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Nicholas PetrickDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, , Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Rongping ZengDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, , Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Jenifer SiegelmanBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachussetts, USA.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health · USHarvard University · USOffice of Science · USRush University Medical Center · USToshiba (United States) · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess the volumetric measurement of small (≤1 cm) nonsolid nodules with computed tomography (CT), focusing on the interaction of state of the art iterative reconstruction (IR) methods and dose with nodule densities, sizes, and shapes.

methodsTwelve synthetic nodules [5 and 10 mm in diameter, densities of -800, -630 and -10 Hounsfield units (HU), spherical and spiculated shapes] were scanned within an anthropomorphic phantom. Dose [computed tomography scan dose index (CTDI

resultsDensity had the most important effect on measurement error followed by the interaction of density with nodule size. The nonsolid -630 HU nodules had high accuracy and precision at levels comparable to solid (-10 HU) nonsolid, regardless of reconstruction method and with CTDI

conclusionsReasonable values of both accuracy and precision were achieved for volumetric measurements of all 10-mm nonsolid nodules, and for the 5-mm nodules with -630 HU or higher density, when derived from scans acquired with below screening dose levels as low as 0.6 mGy and regardless of reconstruction algorithm.

Indexed as

densityiterative reconstruction (IR)Nonsolid nodulesradiation dosevolumetric computed tomography (CT)

Identifiers

PMID29312867
PMCPMC5756779
OpenAlexW2778732908

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.