ArticleSaudi medical journal2019
Computed tomography pulmonary angiography using high-pitch dual-source scanner technology.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- A closer look at the utilized radiation doses during computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for COVID-19 patients.Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993) · 2023Article
- Imaging of the aortic root on high-pitch non-gated and ECG-gated CT: awareness is the key!Insights into imaging · 2020Review
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
objectivesTo compare use of ultra-fast high-pitch dual-source free-breathing computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) with conventional standard-pitch single-source breath-hold CTPA. Methods: This retrospective comparative study was conducted in Radiology Department at King Fahad Military Medical Complex Dhahran, Saudi Arabia from July 2016 to December 2017. Patients (N=130) were divided into 2 groups, each having 65 consecutive patients; Group-1 (single-source CT) and Group-2 (dual-source CT). Previously treated pulmonary embolism cases, pregnant patients and those with incomplete data were excluded. Image quality was subjectively assessed by 2 readers for adequacy of contrast opacification and pulmonary vessel outline, and presence of artifacts (breathing motion, cardiac pulsation, and contrast related). Scan acquisition times and radiation doses were also compared. Chi-square and t-test were used to determine association. Results: Improved image quality (optimal studies without artifacts 91%) was seen in Group-2 compared to Group-1 (optimal studies without artifacts 75.4%). Also, reduced scan time (1-2 sec.) and radiation dose (mean dose length product (DLP)-248 mGy-cm) were observed in Group-2 compared to Group-1 (scan time- 6.5 sec, mean DLP-375). Results were found significant (p less than 0.05). Conclusion: High-pitch dual-source CT with free-breathing yields better image quality, reduces image acquisition time and radiation doses.
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.