ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019
Value of CT iterative metal artifact reduction in PET/CT-clinical evaluation in 100 patients.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Titanium and Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Spinal Implants in Postoperative Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Comprehensive Review of Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Advanced Iterative Metal Artifact Reduction With Intrinsic Spectral Information From Photon-counting Detector Computed Tomography: Improving the Assessment of Metal-bone Interface.Investigative radiology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of single-energy metal artifact reduction algorithm in CT: application to contrast-enhanced CT with EVAR and coil embolization.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- A high prevalence of Cutibacterium acnes infections in scoliosis revision surgery, a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma.Spine deformity · 2023Article
- Impact of Different Metal Artifact Reduction Techniques on Attenuation Correction of Normal Organs inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Quantitative Effect of Metal Artefact Reduction on CT-based attenuation correction in FDG PET/CT in patients with hip prosthesis.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Review
- Combining dual-tree complex wavelets and multiresolution in iterative CT reconstruction with application to metal artifact reduction.Biomedical engineering online · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: To assess the technical feasibility and diagnostic benefit of CT iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) in patients with metal implants undergoing positron emission tomography (PET/CT.
methods: PET/CTs of 100 patients with metal implants in different anatomical localization were retrospectively analyzed. CT data were reconstructed with iMAR and without iMAR (noMAR) and used in comparison for PET attenuation correction, generating iMAR-corrected and noMAR PET data. The effect of iMAR on quantitative CT and PET analysis was assessed by measurements of Hounsfield units (HUs) and standard uptake values (SUV) in predefined anatomical structures and pathological lesions in the vicinity of metal implants. Diagnostic confidence for lesion delineation was assessed using a 3-point scale.
results: For artifact-affected structures, mean HU of iMAR corrected CT significantly differed compared to noMAR CT and standard deviations were significantly lower [e.g. M. masseter: 71.01 ± 22.34 HU (iMAR) vs 98.89 ± 92.18 HU (noMAR), p < .01]. SUVs did not significantly differ in artifact-affected structures [e.g. M. masseter: SUVmean 0.96 ± 0.54 (iMAR) vs 0.97 ± 0.55 (noMAR); p > .89] and pathological findings [SUVmean 10.78 (iMAR) vs 10.81 (noMAR); p > .98] between iMAR and noMAR PET. Qualitatively, delineation was significantly improved in iMAR corrected CT for the interpretation of anatomical and pathological structures [e.g. score of pathologic lesions: 2.80 (iMAR) vs 2.31 (noMAR); p < .01].
conclusion: The use of iMAR in PET/CT significantly improves delineation of anatomical and pathological structures in the vicinity of metal implants in CT. PET quantification and PET image quality are not significantly affected by the use of iMAR-based attenuation correction independent of the presence of metal implants. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: IMAR is a feasible algorithm in PET/CT improving CT image quality in the vicinity of metal implants without affecting PET quantification and can therefore be implemented in the clinical routine.
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.