ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Evaluation of projection- and dual-energy-based methods for metal artifact reduction in CT using a phantom study.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison between 3D printed models and standard 2D planning in the use of metal block augments in revision knee arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2024Observational
- Optimization of photon counting CT for cardiac imaging in patients with left ventricular assist devices: An in-depth assessment of metal artifacts.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Deep-Learning-Based Algorithm for Detecting and Classifying Metallic Implants in Abdominal and Spinal CT Topograms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Dual energy CT in musculoskeletal applications beyond crystal imaging: bone marrow maps and metal artifact reduction.Skeletal radiology · 2022Review
- Establishing a Point-of-Care Virtual Planning and 3D Printing Program.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2022Review
- Review
- Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon-fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on-body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Clinical evaluation of a new adaptive iterative metal artifact reduction method in whole-body low-dose CT skeletal survey examinations.Skeletal radiology · 2021Article
- Combined use of virtual monochromatic images and projection-based metal artifact reduction methods in evaluation of total knee arthroplasty.European radiology · 2020Article
- Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer's metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBoth projection and dual-energy (DE)-based methods have been used for metal artifact reduction (MAR) in CT. The two methods can also be combined. The purpose of this work was to evaluate these three MAR methods using phantom experiments for five types of metal implants. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive phantoms representing spine, dental, hip, shoulder, and knee were constructed with metal implants. These phantoms were scanned using both single-energy (SE) and DE protocols with matched radiation output. The SE data were processed using a projection-based MAR (iMAR, Siemens) algorithm, while the DE data were processed to generate virtual monochromatic images at high keV (Mono+, Siemens). In addition, the DE images after iMAR were used to generate Mono+ images (DE iMAR Mono+). Artifacts were quantitatively evaluated using CT numbers at different regions of interest. Iodine contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was evaluated in the spine phantom. Three musculoskeletal radiologists and two neuro-radiologists independently ranked the artifact reduction.
resultsThe DE Mono+ at high keV resulted in reduced artifacts but also lower iodine CNR. The iMAR method alone caused missing tissue artifacts in dental phantom. DE iMAR Mono+ caused wrong CT numbers in close proximity to the metal prostheses in knee and hip phantoms. All musculoskeletal radiologists ranked SE iMAR > DE iMAR Mono+ > DE Mono+ for knee and hip, while DE iMAR Mono+ > SE iMAR > DE Mono+ for shoulder. Both neuro-radiologists ranked DE iMAR Mono+ > DE Mono+ > SE iMAR for spine and DE Mono+ > DE iMAR Mono+ > SE iMAR for dental.
conclusionsThe SE iMAR was the best choice for the hip and knee prostheses, while DE Mono+ at high keV was best for dental implants and DE iMAR Mono+ was best for spine and shoulder prostheses. Artifacts were also introduced by MAR algorithms.
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.