ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Image quality and absorbed dose comparison of single- and dual-source cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A phantom study comparing low-dose CT physical image quality from five different CT scanners.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Characterization of a prototype rapid kilovoltage x-ray image guidance system designed for a ring shape radiation therapy unit.Medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDual-source cone-beam computed tomography (DCBCT) is currently available in the Vero4DRT image-guided radiotherapy system. We evaluated the image quality and absorbed dose for DCBCT and compared the values with those for single-source CBCT (SCBCT).
methodsImage uniformity, Hounsfield unit (HU) linearity, image contrast, and spatial resolution were evaluated using a Catphan phantom. The rotation angle for acquiring SCBCT and DCBCT images is 215° and 115°, respectively. The image uniformity was calculated using measurements obtained at the center and four peripheral positions. The HUs of seven materials inserted into the phantom were measured to evaluate HU linearity and image contrast. The Catphan phantom was scanned with a conventional CT scanner to measure the reference HU for each material. The spatial resolution was calculated using high-resolution pattern modules. Image quality was analyzed using ImageJ software ver. 1.49. The absorbed dose was measured using a 0.6-cm
resultsCompared with that of SCBCT, the image uniformity of DCBCT was slightly reduced. A strong linear correlation existed between the measured HU for DCBCT and the reference HU, although the linear regression slope was different from that of the reference HU. DCBCT had poorer image contrast than did SCBCT, particularly with a high-contrast material. There was no significant difference between the spatial resolutions of SCBCT and DCBCT. The absorbed dose for DCBCT was higher than that for SCBCT, because in DCBCT, the two x-ray projections overlap between 45° and 70°.
conclusionsWe found that the image quality was poorer and the absorbed dose was higher for DCBCT than for SCBCT in the Vero4DRT.
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.