Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30927099›Full record

Observational studyEuropean radiology2019

Ultralow-dose CT with knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) in evaluation of pulmonary tuberculosis: comparison of radiation dose and image quality.

Chenggong Yan, Chunyi Liang, Jun Xu, Yuankui Wu, Wei Xiong, Huan Zheng, Yikai Xu

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CT andInsights into imaging · 2022
    Review
  5. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chenggong YanDepartment of Medical Imaging Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Chunyi LiangDepartment of Medical Imaging Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Jun XuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yuankui WuDepartment of Medical Imaging Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Wei XiongDepartment of Medical Imaging Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Huan ZhengDepartment of Medical Imaging Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yikai XuDepartment of Medical Imaging Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. yikaixu917@gmail.com.
Southern Medical University · CNNanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China 2016YFC0107104Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China 2015B010131011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the image quality of ultralow-dose computed tomography (ULDCT) reconstructed with knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB).

methodsThis IRB-approved prospective study enrolled 59 consecutive patients (mean age, 43.9 ± 16.6 years; F:M 18:41) with known or suspected pulmonary TB. Patients underwent a low-dose CT (LDCT) using automatic tube current modulation followed by an ULDCT using fixed tube current. Raw image data were reconstructed with filtered-back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose), and IMR. Objective measurements including CT attenuation, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were assessed and compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Overall image quality and visualization of normal and pathological findings were subjectively scored on a five-point scale. Radiation output and subjective scores were compared by the paired Student t test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively.

resultsCompared with FBP and iDose, IMR yielded significantly lower noise and higher CNR values at both dose levels (p < 0.01). Subjective ratings for pathological findings including centrilobular nodules, consolidation, tree-in-bud, and cavity were significantly better with ULDCT IMR images than those with LDCT iDose images (p < 0.01), but blurred edges were observed. With IMR implementation, a 59% reduction of the mean effective dose was achieved with ULDCT (0.28 ± 0.02 mSv) compared with LDCT (0.69 ± 0.15 mSv) without impairing image quality (p < 0.001).

conclusionsIMR offers considerable noise reduction and improvement in image quality for patients with pulmonary TB undergoing chest ULDCT at an effective dose of 0.28 mSv. KEY POINTS: • Radiation dose is a major concern for tuberculosis patients requiring repeated follow-up CT. • IMR allows substantial radiation dose reduction in chest CT without compromising image quality. • ULDCT reconstructed with IMR allows accurate depiction of CT features of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultidetector Computed TomographyProspective StudiesRadiation DosageRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTuberculosis, PulmonaryYoung AdultInfectionPulmonary tuberculosisRadiation dosageThoraxTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID30927099
OpenAlexW2935069779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.