ArticleScientific reports2018
Bone mineral density assessment using iterative reconstruction compared with quantitative computed tomography as the standard of reference.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methods for bone quality assessment in human bone tissue: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Cortex or cancellous-which is early for the decrease of bone content for vertebral body in health?Endocrine · 2022Article
- The applicability of trabecular bone score for osteoporosis diagnosis in ankylosing spondylitis.Rheumatology international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the influence of iterative reconstruction on bone mineral density (BMD) measurement by comparison with standard quantitative computed tomography (QCT; reference) and two other protocols based on filtered back projection. Ten human cadaver specimens of the lumbar spine with a hydroxyapatite calibration phantom underneath, were scanned with 4 protocols: 1. standard QCT, 2. volume scan with FBP, 3. helical scan with FBP, and 4. helical scan with IR (Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D (AIDR3D)). Radiation doses were recorded as CT dose index (CTDIvol) and BMD, signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. Mean hydroxyapatite concentration (HOA) did not differ significantly between protocols, ranging from 98.58 ± 31.09 mg cm
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.