Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32881876›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Dual-source abdominopelvic computed tomography: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose of 80 kVp and 80/150 kVp with tin filter.

Seung Joon Choi, Su Joa Ahn, So Hyun Park, Seong Ho Park, Seong Yong Pak, Jae Won Choi, Young Sup Shim, Yu Mi Jeong, Bohyun Kim

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Seung Joon ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Su Joa AhnDepartment of Radiology, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
So Hyun ParkDepartment of Radiology, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9935-2863
Seong Ho ParkDivision of Abdominal Radiology, Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seong Yong PakImaging and Computer Vision Division, Siemens Healthcare, Seoul, Korea.
Jae Won ChoiImaging and Computer Vision Division, Siemens Healthcare, Seoul, Korea.
Young Sup ShimDepartment of Radiology, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Yu Mi JeongDepartment of Radiology, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Bohyun KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul Saint Mary's Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Gachon University · KRUlsan College · KRThe Catholic University of Korea Seoul St. Mary's Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the radiation dose and the objective and subjective image quality of 80 kVp and 80/150 kVp with tin filter (80/Sn150 kVp) computed tomography (CT) in oncology patients.

methodsOne-hundred-and-forty-five consecutive oncology patients who underwent third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT of the abdomen for evaluation of malignant visceral, peritoneal, extraperitoneal, and bone tumor were retrospectively recruited. Two radiologists independently reviewed each observation in 80 kVp CT and 80/Sn150 kVp CT. Modified line-density profile of the tumor and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured. Diagnostic confidence, lesion conspicuity, and subjective image quality were calculated and compared between image sets. The effective dose and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) were calculated in the image sets.

resultsModified line-density profile analysis revealed higher attenuation differences between the tumor and normal tissue in 80 kVp CT than in 80/Sn150 kVp CT (127 vs. 107, P = 0.05). The 80 kVp CT showed increased CNR in the liver (8.0 vs. 7.6) and the aorta (18.9 vs. 16.3) than the 80/Sn150 kVp CT. The 80 kVp CT yielded higher enhancement of organs (4.9 ± 0.2 vs. 4.7 ± 0.4, P<0.001) and lesion conspicuity (4.9 ± 0.3 vs. 4.8 ± 0.5, P = 0.035) than the 80/Sn150 kVp CT; overall image quality and confidence index were comparable. The effective dose was reduced by 45.2% with 80 kVp CT (2.3 mSv ± 0.9) compared to 80/Sn150 kVp CT (4.1 mSv ± 1.5). The SSDE was 7.4 ± 3.8 mGy on 80/Sn150 kVp CT and 4.1 ± 2.2 mGy on 80 kVp CT.

conclusionsThe 80 kVp CT reduced the radiation dose by 45.2% in oncology patients while showing comparable or superior image quality to that of 80/Sn150 kVp CT for abdominal tumor evaluation.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageTinAbdomenAgedAlgorithmsContrast MediaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPelvisRadiographic Image EnhancementRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaTin

Identifiers

PMID32881876
PMCPMC7470424
OpenAlexW3083023993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.