Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30338365›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2019

Comparison of dual- and single-source dual-energy CT in head and neck imaging.

Matthias Stefan May, Marco Wiesmueller, Rafael Heiss, Michael Brand, Joscha Bruegel, Michael Uder, Wolfgang Wuest

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Dual-Energy CT in Oncologic Imaging.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. MRI Findings in Acute Tonsillar Infections.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthias Stefan MayDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Marco WiesmuellerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Rafael HeissDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Michael BrandDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Joscha BruegelDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Michael UderDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Wolfgang WuestDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. wolfgang.wuest@uk-erlangen.de.
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare image quality of single-source dual-energy CT (SS-DECT) with third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DS-DECT) in head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred two patients with histologically proven head and neck cancer were prospectively randomized to undergo radiation dose-matched SS-DECT (n = 51, 120 kV, split-filter technique, 384 ref. mAs) or DS-DECT (n = 51, 80/Sn150 kV, tube A 100/tube B 67 ref. mAs). Inline default images (DI) and virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) for two different low energies (40 and 60 keV) were reconstructed. Objective image quality was evaluated as dose-normalized contrast to noise ratio (CNRD), and subjective image quality was rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

resultsIn both groups, highest CNRD values for vessel and tumor attenuation were obtained at 40 keV. DS-DECT was significantly better than SS-DECT regarding vessel and tumor attenuation. Overall subjective image quality in the SS-DECT group was highest on the DI followed by 40 keV and 60 keV. In the DS-DECT group, subjective image quality was highest at 40 keV followed by 60 keV and the DI. Forty kiloelectron volts and 60 keV were significantly better in the DS-DECT compared to the SS-DECT group (both p < 0.01).

conclusionsIn split-filter SS-DECT as well as in DS-DECT, highest overall image quality in head and neck imaging can be obtained with a combination of DI and low keV reconstructions. DS-DECT is superior to split-filter SS-DECT in terms of subjective image quality and vessel and tumor attenuation. KEY POINTS: • Image quality was diagnostic with both dual-energy techniques; however, the dual-source technique delivered significantly better results. • Highest overall image quality in head and neck imaging can be obtained with a combination of default images and low keV reconstructions with both dual-energy techniques. • The results of this study may have relevance for the decision-making process regarding replacement of CT scanners and focused patient examination considering image quality and subsequent therapeutic decision-making.

Indexed as

FemaleHeadHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedNeckRadiation ExposureRadiography, Dual-Energy Scanned ProjectionTomography, X-Ray ComputedDiagnostic imagingHead and neck neoplasmsImage enhancement

Identifiers

PMID30338365
OpenAlexW2896179842

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.