ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2020
Comparison of different iterative CT reconstruction techniques and filtered back projection for assessment of the medial clavicular epiphysis in forensic age estimation.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standards of practice in forensic age estimation with CT of the medial clavicular epiphysis-a systematic review.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Pooled it
- CT of the medial clavicular epiphysis for forensic age estimation: hands up?International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
- CT Image Features under Reconstruction Algorithm in Analysis of the Effect of Probiotics Combined with Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Treatment of Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Effect of Reconstruction Algorithm on the Identification of 3D Printing Polymers Based on Hyperspectral CT Technology Combined with Artificial Neural Network.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection (FBP) on image quality in computed tomography (CT)-based forensic age estimation of the medial clavicular epiphysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CT of the clavicle was performed in 19 patients due to forensic reasons (70 mAs/140 kVp). Raw data were reconstructed with FBP and with an iterative algorithm at level 4 and 6. Clavicular ossification stage was determined by two radiologists in consensus, firstly on FBP reconstructed images and secondly after reviewing all reconstructions including iDose 4 and 6. In addition, the 3 reconstructions were compared regarding artefacts and delineation of the meta-/epiphyseal interface. Quantitative image noise was measured.
resultsQuantitative noise was lower in iDose 6 reconstructed images than in FBP (P < 0.042), but not significantly lower between iDose 4 and FBP (P = 0.127). Side by side comparison revealed lesser qualitative image noise on both iDose reconstructed images than for FBP. The meta-/epiphyseal interface delineation was rated better on both iDose levels than with FBP. In 3 of 19 patients, the clavicular ossification stage was reclassified after iterative reconstructions had been additionally reviewed.
conclusionUsing iterative CT reconstruction algorithms, a reduction of image noise and an enhancement of image quality regarding the meta-/epiphyseal clavicular interface can be achieved. The study highlights the importance of image standardization as variation of reconstruction technique has impact on forensic age estimation.
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.