ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Volumetric assessment of solid pulmonary nodules on ultralow-dose CT: a phantom study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection, measurement, and diagnosis of lung nodules by ultra-low-dose CT in lung cancer screening: a systematic review.BJR open · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the outcome of volumetry tools for pulmonary nodule analysis: a systematic review and attempted meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- Comparability of Pulmonary Nodule Size Measurements among Different Scanners and Protocols: Should Diameter Be Favorized over Volume?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Differential Diagnosis of Preinvasive Lesions in Small Pulmonary Nodules by Dual Source Computed Tomography Imaging.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Screen-detected solid nodules: from detection of nodule to structured reporting.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Latest CT technologies in lung cancer screening: protocols and radiation dose reduction.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Maximum Intensity Projection in Diagnosis of Malignant Pulmonary Nodules.Cureus · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo reduce the radiation exposure from chest computed tomography (CT), ultralow-dose CT (ULDCT) protocols performed at sub-millisievert levels were previously tested for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules (PNs). The purpose of our study was to investigate the effect of ULDCT and iterative image reconstruction on volumetric measurements of solid PNs.
methodsCT datasets of an anthropomorphic chest phantom containing solid microspheres were obtained with a third-generation dual-source CT at standard dose, 1/8th, 1/20th and 1/70th of standard dose [CT volume dose index (CTDI
resultsBland-Altman analysis revealed small mean interscan differences of APE with narrow limits of agreement (-0.1%±4.3% to -0.3%±3.8%). Dose settings (P<0.001), reconstruction algorithms (P<0.001), nodule diameters (P<0.001) and nodule density (P=0.011) had statistically significant influence on APE. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests showed slightly higher APE when scanning with 1/70th of standard dose [mean difference: 3.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.5-4.3%; P<0.001], and for image reconstruction with ADMIRE5 (mean difference: 1.8%, 95% CI: 1.0-2.5%; P<0.001). No significant differences for scanning with 1/20th of standard dose (P=0.42), and image reconstruction with ADMIRE3 (P=0.19) were found. Scanning with 1/70th of standard dose and image reconstruction with FBP showed the widest range of PDs (-16.8% to 23.4%) compared to standard dose-FBP.
conclusionsOur phantom study showed no significant difference between nodule volume measurements on standard dose CT (CTDI
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.