SynthesisNeuroradiology2019
Diagnostic accuracy of flat-panel computed tomography in assessing cerebral perfusion in comparison with perfusion computed tomography and perfusion magnetic resonance: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of Major Stroke (NIHSS > 5) Based on MR Perfusion Imaging Using a 3D ResNet.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Flat-panel Detector Perfusion Imaging and Conventional Multidetector Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke : A Comparative Study.Clinical neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of time-resolved whole brain flat panel detector perfusion imaging using RAPID ANGIO in patients with acute stroke: comparison with CT perfusion imaging.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2023Article
- Flat Detector CT with Cerebral Pooled Blood Volume Perfusion in the Angiography Suite: From Diagnostics to Treatment Monitoring.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Selective Angiographic Flat Detector Computer Tomography Blood Volume Imaging in Pre-Operative Vascular Mapping and Embolization of Hypervascular Intracranial Tumors-Preliminary Clinical Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFlat-panel computed tomography (FP-CT) is increasingly available in angiographic rooms and hybrid OR's. Considering its easy access, cerebral imaging using FP-CT is an appealing modality for intra-procedural applications. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FP-CT compared with perfusion computed tomography (CTP) and perfusion magnetic resonance (MRP) in cerebral perfusion imaging.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature search in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to June 2019 for studies directly comparing FP-CT with either CTP or MRP in vivo. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data on diagnostic accuracy was extracted and pooled if possible.
resultsWe found 11 studies comparing FP-CT with CTP and 5 studies comparing FP-CT with MRP. Most articles were pilot or feasibility studies, focusing on scanning and contrast protocols. All patients studied showed signs of cerebrovascular disease. Half of the studies were animal trials. Quality assessment showed unclear to high risks of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. Five studies reported on diagnostic accuracy; FP-CT shows good sensitivity (range 0.84-1.00) and moderate specificity (range 0.63-0.88) in detecting cerebral blood volume (CBV) lesions.
conclusionsEven though FP-CT provides similar CBV values and reconstructed blood volume maps as CTP in cerebrovascular disease, additional studies are required in order to reliably compare its diagnostic accuracy with cerebral perfusion imaging.
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.