ArticleEmergency radiology2019
High-pitch versus standard mode CT pulmonary angiography: a comparison of indeterminate studies.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2019. 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.
- High-pitch CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with ultra-low contrast medium volume for the detection of pulmonary embolism: a comparison with standard CTPA.European radiology · 2024Article
- Acute pulmonary embolism multimodality imaging prior to endovascular therapy.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the causes of indeterminate CT pulmonary angiograms using standard mode and high-pitch mode, and determine at what level of the pulmonary arterial tree studies were non-diagnostic.
methodsIRB approval was obtained. A retrospective review of patients at our institution who underwent a CT pulmonary angiogram, between November 1, 2015 and February 10, 2016 was performed. CT pulmonary angiograms using both high-pitch mode and standard mode were evaluated with positive and indeterminate rates calculated. Causes of indeterminate studies and the level of the pulmonary arterial tree at which the study became non-diagnostic were determined by a board certified radiologist by looking at the images of each indeterminate study. The indeterminate rates were compared between high-pitch and standard modes using a generalized estimating equation.
resultsFive hundred fifty-nine CT pulmonary angiograms using high-pitch mode were evaluated, while 661 standard mode scans were evaluated. 69/559 (12.3%) scans with high-pitch mode were positive and 84/661 (12.7%) scans with standard mode were positive (not statistically significant, p > 0.05). There was a higher rate of indeterminate scans with standard mode compared to the high-pitch mode (80 [12.1%] standard vs. 25 [4.5%] high-pitch, p value < 0.0001). Findings were indeterminate at the lobar level in 4 (16%), at the segmental level in 11 (44%), and at the subsegmental level in 10 (40%) using high-pitch mode. The most common causes of an indeterminate scan using high-pitch mode were motion in 11 (44%), transient interruption of contrast in 6 (24%), and contrast timing in 5 (20%). Findings were indeterminate at the main pulmonary artery level in 1 (1.3%), at the lobar level in 13 (16.3%), at the segmental level in 28 (35.0%), and at the subsegmental level in 38 (47.5%) using the standard mode. The most common causes of an indeterminate scan using the standard mode were motion in 53 (66.3%), transient interruption of contrast in 19 (23.8%), and contrast timing in 15 (18.8%).
conclusionsHigh-pitch mode results in statistically significant fewer indeterminate studies compared with standard mode. Furthermore, there were statistically significant fewer indeterminate studies due to motion artifact with high-pitch mode compared with standard mode.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30426272What 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.