Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30546936›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2018

Low Dose versus Standard Single Heartbeat Acquisition Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography.

Ernesto Di Cesare, Alessandra Di Sibio, Antonio Gennarelli, Margherita Di Luzio, Ines Casazza, Alessandra Splendiani, Annamaria Di Cesare, Giovanni Luca Gravina, Antonio Barile, Carlo Masciocchi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Ernesto Di CesareDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Alessandra Di SibioDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Antonio GennarelliDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Margherita Di LuzioDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Ines CasazzaDepartment of Radiology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Alessandra SplendianiDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Annamaria Di CesareDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Giovanni Luca GravinaDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Antonio BarileDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.
Carlo MasciocchiDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, University of L'aquila, L'aquila, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare image quality and mean radiation dose between two groups of patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) using a 640-slice CT scanner with two protocols with different noise level thresholds expressed as standard deviation (SD). MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo-hundred and sixty-eight patients underwent a CCTA with 640 slice CT scanner. In the experimental group (135 patients), an SD 51 protocol was employed; in the control group (133 patients), an SD 33 protocol was used. Mean effective dose and image quality with both objective and subjective measures were assessed. Image quality was subjectively assessed using a five-point scoring system. Segments scoring 2, 3, and 4 were considered having diagnostic quality, while segments scoring 0 and 1 were considered having nondiagnostic quality. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between the two groups as well as the effective radiation dose (ED) was finally assessed.

resultsComparative analysis considering diagnostic quality (2, 3, and 4 score) and nondiagnostic (score 0 and 1) quality demonstrated that image quality of SD 51 group is not significantly lower than that of S33 group. The noise was significantly higher in the SD 51 group than in the SD 33 group (

conclusionComparative analysis shows that using a 640-slice CT with a 51 SD protocol, it is possible to reduce the mean radiation dose while maintaining good diagnostic image quality.

Indexed as

Coronary computed tomography angiographyimage noiseimage qualityradiation dose

Identifiers

PMID30546936
PMCPMC6251242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.