ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2019
Efficiency and reproducibility in pulmonary nodule detection in simulated dose reduction lung CT images.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the reproducibility and productivity of reduced dose chest computed tomography (CT) using a nodule detection task. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty-eight consecutive non-contrast CT examinations were performed using an automatic exposure system with a reference standard deviation of 8.5. Simulated raw data of a reduced dose scan (standard deviation at 21 and 29) were generated with a dose simulator. Original and simulated raw data were reconstructed to series of 7-mm-thick images (Original, Simulation A, Simulation B). In the first part of the reading experiment, three readers independently interpreted these images (88 cases × 3 series) and recorded the size, type, and location of the pulmonary nodules. The reading time for every case was recorded. In the second part of the experiment, the repeated interpretation of standard dose images was performed by two readers. Concordance or discordance of nodule detection between the first and the repeated reading result was assessed.
resultsA statistically significant difference in the detected nodule counts for lesions less than 5 mm by one reader was observed in simulation B images. Discordance of the interpretation result was found only in ground-glass nodules larger than 5 mm detected by one reader in simulation B images. There was no statistically significant difference in the reading time among the three image types.
conclusionSimulated standard deviation 21 images can reproduce the image interpretation result of original images, whereas simulated standard deviation 29 images may compromise the accuracy of nodule assessment. The effect on the reading time was not observed with dose reduction simulation.
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.