ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Sub-millisievert CT colonography: effect of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction on the detection of colonic polyps.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.European radiology · 2021Guideline
- Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Image quality and radiologists' subjective acceptance using model-based iterative and deep learning reconstructions as adjuncts to ultrahigh-resolution CT in low-dose contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT: phantom and clinical pilot studies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
- Can fully iterative reconstruction technique enable routine abdominal CT at less than 1 mSv?European journal of radiology open · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility of ultra-low dose computed tomography colonography (CTC) using knowledge-based iterative reconstruction (IR) and to determine its effect on polyp detection.
methodsForty-nine prospectively-enrolled patients underwent ultra-low dose CTC in the supine (100 kVp/20 mAs) and prone positions (80 kVp/20 mAs), followed by same-day colonoscopy. Thereafter, images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and knowledge-based IR (IMR; Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands) algorithms. Effective radiation dose of CTC was recorded. Pooled per-polyp sensitivity and positive predictive value of three radiologists was analysed and compared between FBP and IMR. Image quality was assessed on a five-point scale and image noise was recorded using standard deviations.
resultsMean effective radiation dose of ultra-low dose CTC was 0.90 ± 0.06 mSv. Eighty-nine polyps were detected on colonoscopy (mean, 8.5 ± 4.7 mm). The pooled per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6.0-9.9 mm (n = 22) on CTC reconstructed with IMR (36/66, 54.5%) was not significantly different with that using FBP algorithm (34/66, 51.5%) (p = 0.414). For polyps ≥10 mm (n = 35), however, the pooled per-polyp sensitivity on CTC with IMR (73/105, 69.5%) was significantly higher than that with FBP (55/105, 52.4%) (p < 0.001). In particular, the difference of per-polyp sensitivity was statistically significant in intermediate (p = 0.014) and novice (p = 0.003) reviewers. Furthermore, mean image noise of IMR (8.4 ± 6.2 HU) was significantly lower than that of FBP (37.5 ± 13.9 HU) (p < 0.001) and image quality with IMR was significantly better than with FBP in all evaluated segments in all reviewers (all ps < 0.001).
conclusionsSub-mSv CTC reconstructed with IMR was feasible for the detection of clinically significant polyps, demonstrating 70% per-polyp sensitivity of polyps ≥10 mm, while allowing significant noise reduction and improvement in image quality compared with FBP reconstruction. KEY POINTS: • Sub-mSv CTC using IMR demonstrated 70% per-polyp sensitivity for polyps ≥10 mm. • CTC using IMR significantly outperformed CTC reconstructed with FBP. • IMR allows significantly more noise reduction and improvement in image quality than FBP.
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.