ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Sparse sampling computed tomography (SpSCT) for detection of pulmonary embolism: a feasibility study.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Computed Tomography of the Spine : Systematic Review on Acquisition and Reconstruction Techniques to Reduce Radiation Dose.Clinical neuroradiology · 2023Pooled it
- Ultra-Low-Dose CTPA Using Sparse Sampling CT Combined with the U-Net for Deep Learning-Based Artifact Reduction: An Exploratory Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical value and feasibility of CT pulmonary angiography with personalized injection of contrast agent in pulmonary embolism.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvaluation of sparse sampling computed tomography (SpSCT) regarding subjective and objective image criteria for the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) at different simulated dose levels.
methodsComputed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) scans of 20 clinical patients were used to obtain simulated low-dose scans with 100%-50%-25%-12.5%-6.3%-3.1% of the clinical dose, resulting in a total of six dose levels (DL). From these full sampling (FS) data, every second (2-SpSCT) or fourth (4-SpSCT) projection was used to obtain simulated sparse sampling scans. Each image set was evaluated by four blinded radiologists regarding subjective image criteria (artifacts, image quality) and diagnostic performance (confidence, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve). Additionally, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was evaluated for objective image quality.
resultsSensitivity was 100% with 2-SpSCT and 4-SpSCT at the 25% DL and the 12.5% DL for all localizations of PE (one subgroup 98.5%). With FS, the sensitivity decreased to 90% at the 12.5% DL. 2-SpSCT and 4-SpSCT showed higher values for sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the curve at all DL compared with FS. Subjective image quality was significantly higher for 4-SpSCT compared with FS at each dose level (p < 0.01, paired t test). Only with 4-SpSCT, all examinations were rated as showing diagnostic image quality at the 12.5% DL.
conclusionsVia SpSCT, a dose reduction down to a 12.5% dose level (corresponding to a mean effective dose of 0.38 mSv in the current study) for CTPA is possible while maintaining high image quality and full diagnostic confidence. KEY POINTS: • With sparse sampling CT, radiation dose could be significantly reduced in clinical routine. • Sparse sampling CT is a novel hardware solution with which less projection images are acquired. • In the current study, a dose reduction of 87.5% (corresponding to a mean effective dose of 0.38 mSv) for CTPA could be achieved while maintaining excellent diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31073861What 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.