ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Comparison on radiation effective dose and image quality of right coronary artery on prospective ECG-gated method between 320 row CT and 2nd generation (128-slice) dual source CT.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation dose for 320-row dose-modulated dynamic coronary CT angiography.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Trial
- Article
- Effects of combining multiple dose reduction techniques on coronary computed tomography angiography.World journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Comparison of radiation dose and its correlates between coronary computed tomography angiography and invasive coronary angiography in Northeastern Thailand.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Effect of Calcification Based on Computer-Aided System on CT-Fractional Flow Reserve in Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Lesion.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- The sub-millisievert era in CTCA: the technical basis of the new radiation dose approach.La Radiologia medica · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study was to compare the image quality of right coronary artery (RCA) and effective radiation dose on prospective ECG-gated method between 320 row computed tomography (CT) and 2nd generation (128-slice) dual source CT. A total of 215 candidates underwent CT coronary angiography using prospective ECG-gated method, 120 patients enrolled in 320 row CT group, and 95 patients in dual source CT group. We divided RCA image quality scores as 1/2/3/4, which means excellent/good/adequate/not assessable and heart rates were considered, as well as the radiation dose. There is no statistically significant difference of RCA image quality of Score 1/2 between 320 row CT and 2nd generation dual source CT, but lower heart rate (<70/min) improved RCA image quality. Meanwhile, the 2nd generation dual source CT scan have significant lower radiation dose. For patients with high level heart rate variation, both prospective ECG-gated method of 320 row CT scan (Toshiba) and 2nd generation dual source CT scan (Siemens) basically provided good image quality on RCA. There is an advantage of effective radiation dose reduction in prospective ECG-gated method using the 2nd generation dual source CT scan. After the iodine contrast agent was injected into elbow vein, the threshold triggering method was used to carry out prospective gated scanning, and the acquired fault image was reconstructed by the standard post-processing software of each manufacturer. The radiation dose value is obtained through the dose report automatically generated after each scan.
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.