Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470108›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

Application of 80-kVp scan and raw data-based iterative reconstruction for reduced iodine load abdominal-pelvic CT in patients at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy referred for oncological assessment: effects on radiation dose, image quality and renal function.

Yasunori Nagayama, Shota Tanoue, Akinori Tsuji, Joji Urata, Mitsuhiro Furusawa, Seitaro Oda, Takeshi Nakaura, Daisuke Utsunomiya, Eri Yoshida, Morikatsu Yoshida and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Assessment of radiographers' knowledge about radiation doses and DRLs in computed tomography departments in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yasunori Nagayama1 Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3280-7346
Shota Tanoue1 Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Akinori Tsuji1 Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Joji Urata1 Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Mitsuhiro Furusawa1 Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Seitaro Oda2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Takeshi Nakaura2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Daisuke Utsunomiya2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Eri Yoshida1 Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Morikatsu Yoshida2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Masafumi Kidoh2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Machiko Tateishi1 Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital , Kumamoto , Japan.
Yasuyuki Yamashita2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University , Kumamoto , Japan.
Kumamoto University · JPKumamoto City Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the image quality, radiation dose, and renal safety of contrast medium (CM)-reduced abdominal-pelvic CT combining 80-kVp and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) in patients with renal dysfunction for oncological assessment.

methodsWe included 45 patients with renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate  <45 ml per min per 1.73 m

resultsThe size-specific dose estimate and iodine load of 80-kVp protocol were 32 and 41%,, respectively, lower than of 120-kVp protocol (p < 0.01). CT attenuation and contrast-to-noise ratio of parenchymal organs and vessels in 80-kVp images were significantly better than those of 120-kVp images (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in quantitative or qualitative image noise or subjective overall quality (p > 0.05). No significant kidney injury associated with CM administration was observed.

conclusion80-kVp abdominal-pelvic CT with SAFIRE yields diagnostic image quality in oncology patients with renal dysfunction under substantially reduced iodine and radiation dose without renal safety concerns. Advances in knowledge: Using 80-kVp and SAFIRE allows for 40% iodine load and 32% radiation dose reduction for abdominal-pelvic CT without compromising image quality and renal function in oncology patients at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.

Indexed as

IodineRadiation DosageAbdomenAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsContrast MediaFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedKidneyKidney DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedPelvisContrast MediaIodine

Identifiers

PMID29470108
PMCPMC6190770
OpenAlexW2788333824

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.