Trial reportMedicine2018
Computed tomography portography of patients with cirrhosis with normal body mass index: Comparison between low-tube-voltage CT with low contrast agent dose and conventional CT.
Trial report in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance and image quality of low-tube voltage and low-contrast medium dose protocol with hybrid iterative reconstruction for hepatic dynamic CT.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is to investigate the computed tomography (CT) image quality of the low- tube-voltage protocol with low contrast agent dose.CT portography was performed in 118 cirrhosis patients with body mass index (BMI) less than 25 kg/m under 2 protocols: Protocol A, tube voltage of 90 kVp/395 mAs and contrast agent dosage of 1.2 mL/kg, and, Protocol B, tube voltage of 120 kVp/200 mAs and contrast agent dosage of 1.5 mL/kg.The number of patients in each protocol was 59. The CT value noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in portal veins was comparatively analyzed between the 2 protocols. The subjective image quality was further assessed on 5-point scales. Radiation dose was also recorded and statistical analysis was performed.The CT value, CNR, and SNR of the images were higher at 90 kVp than those at 120 kVp (P < .05). There was no significant difference in image noise between the 2 protocols (P > .05). The CT dose index volume, dose-length product, and effective dose at 90 kVp were 18.2%, 16.0%, and 16.0% less than that at 120 kVp, respectively. There was no difference in image quality score between the 2 protocols (P > .05). The average amount of contrast agent was decreased by 17.8% when the 90 kVp protocol was used.CT portography at 90 kVp combined with low-dosage contrast agent leads to a significant reduction in radiation dose and improved SNR and CNR, without deterioration of image quality.
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.