ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2019
Fast kilovoltage-switching dual-energy CT offering lower x-ray dose than single-energy CT for the chest: a quantitative and qualitative comparison study of the two methods of acquisition.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography in detecting anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Skeletal radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of automatic exposure control on radiation dose and detectability in dual-source and fast kV switching dual-energy CT.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of breast-level surface dose between single-energy CT and fast kilovoltage-switching dual-energy CT under matched CTDIvol conditions: a chest phantom study.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Accurate iodine quantification and residual error reduction with principal component analysis multimaterial decomposition using spectral CT.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Dual-energy CT in musculoskeletal imaging: technical considerations and clinical applications.La Radiologia medica · 2024Review
- Photon-counting computed tomography in the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: an initial experienceDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Evaluation of Breast Cancer Follow-Ups: Comparison of Virtual Monoenergetic Images and Iodine-Map.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Building a dual-energy CT service line in abdominal radiology.European radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to compare the size-specific dose estimates (SSDE), computed tomography (CT) dose indices and image quality parameters of the chest CTs obtained with fast kilovoltage-switching (FKS) dual-energy (DE) CT versus those with single-energy (SE) CT.
methodsPatients who had chest SECT within the last 6 months were prospectively scanned with chest FKS-DECT. Quantitative comparison was made by calculating the mean SSDE, CTDIvol, contrast, noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for both acquisitions. Two radiologists evaluated the chest SECT and DECT images qualitatively blinded to the technique used. The paired Student's t test was utilized for comparing the quantitative and qualitative data. Inter- and intraobserver agreement were also assessed.
resultsA total of 42 patients were included. The mean SSDE, CTDIvol, contrast, noise, CNR, and SNR for SECT versus DECT were 12.7±2.2 mGy vs. 9.3±1.2 mGy (P = 0.001), 10.9±2.4 mGy vs. 8±1.2 mGy (P < 0.001), 211.9±44.7 vs. 216.3±59 (P = 0.350), 12.9±2.4 vs. 13.9±3.7 (P = 0.086), 13.5±5.2 vs. 13.3±8.4 (P = 0.548) and 12±3.5 vs. 11.5±3.4 (P = 0.774), respectively. Interobserver reproducibility was high for contrast, noise, CNR, and SNR (ICC = 0.89, 0.85, 0.93, and 0.82, respectively; all P < 0.05). Intraobserver reproducibility was high for contrast, noise, CNR, and SNR (ICC = 0.80, 0.77, 0.85, and 0.88, respectively; all P < 0.05).
conclusionThe mean SSDE of the chest CTs obtained with FKS-DECT were 26.8% lower than those with SECT with significant difference for the objective assessment and there was no significant difference for the subjective assessment of the image qualities, in this series.
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.