ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Correction to: Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The original version of this article, published on 10 February 2019, unfortunately contained a mistake. The axes of the graphs in Fig. 3 are incorrect. The correct figure is given below. Therefore, the last two sentences in "Results," section "Noise," should read: "The peak frequency of the HR and SHR was 0.21 lp/mm. For the NR mode and the MDCT, the peak frequencies were 0.17 lp/mm and 0.21 lp/mm, respectively."
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.