ArticleSkeletal radiology2021
Dual-energy CT arthrography: a feasibility study.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2021. 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.
- New imaging techniques and trends in radiology.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- Chances and challenges of photon-counting CT in musculoskeletal imaging.Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- Dual-Energy CT in Oncologic Imaging.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Review
- Virtual non-contrast images calculated from dual-energy CT shoulder arthrography improve the detection of intraarticular loose bodies.Skeletal radiology · 2022Article
- Dual energy CT in musculoskeletal applications beyond crystal imaging: bone marrow maps and metal artifact reduction.Skeletal radiology · 2022Review
- Dual energy CT arthrography in shoulder instability: successful iodine removal with virtual non-contrast images and accurate 3D reformats of the glenoid for assessment of bone loss.Skeletal radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of producing 2-dimensional (2D) virtual noncontrast images and 3-dimensional (3D) bone models from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) arthrograms and to determine whether this is best accomplished using 190 keV virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) or virtual unenhanced (VUE) images. MATERIALS AND
methodsVMI and VUE images were retrospectively reconstructed from patients with internal derangement of the shoulder or knee joint who underwent DECT arthrography between September 2017 and August 2019. A region of interest was placed in the area of brightest contrast, and the mean attenuation (in Hounsfield units [HUs]) was recorded. Two blinded musculoskeletal radiologists qualitatively graded the 2D images and 3D models using scores ranging from 0 to 3 (0 considered optimal).
resultsTwenty-six patients (mean age ± SD, 57.5 ± 16.8 years; 6 women) were included in the study. The contrast attenuation on VUE images (overall mean ± SD, 10.5 ± 16.4 HU; knee, 19.3 ± 10.7 HU; shoulder, 5.0 ± 17.2 HU) was significantly lower (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) than on VMI (overall mean ± SD, 107.7 ± 43.8 HU; knee, 104.6 ± 31.1 HU; shoulder, 109.6 ± 51.0 HU). The proportion of cases with optimal scores (0 or 1) was significantly higher with VUE than with VMI for both 2D and 3D images (p < 0.001).
conclusionsDECT arthrography can be used to produce 2D virtual noncontrast images and to generate 3D bone models. The VUE technique is superior to VMI in producing virtual noncontrast images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32948903What 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.