ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Improved Diagnostic Accuracy of Bone Metastasis Detection by Water-HAP Associated to Non-contrast CT.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT virtual non-calcium imaging for detecting spinal metastases: a retrospective comparison with conventional CT.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of dual-layer spectral CT for osteolytic vertebral metastases.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Multi-parameter spectral computed tomography for the prognosis evaluation of prostate cancer bone metastasis: a retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Assessing visibility and bone changes of spinal metastases in CT scans: a comprehensive analysis across diverse cancer types.Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
- Bone Metastases in Non-Seminomatous Germ Cell Tumors: A 20-Year Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Detecting bone marrow infiltration in nonosteolytic multiple myeloma through separation of hydroxyapatite via the two-material decomposition technique in spectral computed tomography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Opportunistic screening with multiphase contrast-enhanced dual-layer spectral CT for osteoblastic lesions in prostate cancer compared with bone scintigraphy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Thoracic Diseases: Technique and Applications of Dual-Energy CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Utility of CT in detecting and monitoring subphrenic jujube pits: a retrospective cross-sectional study of clinical cases andQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined whether water-hydroxyapatite (HAP) images improve the diagnostic accuracy of bone metastasis compared with non-contrast CT alone. We retrospectively evaluated dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) images of 83 cancer patients (bone metastasis, 31; without bone metastasis, 52) from May 2018 to June 2019. Initially, two evaluators examined for bone metastasis on conventional CT images. In the second session, both CT and CT images plus water-HAP images on DECT. The confidence of bone metastasis was scored from 1 (benign) to 5 (malignant). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values for both modalities were calculated based on true positive and negative findings. The intra-observer area under curve (AUC) for detecting bone metastasis was compared by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Kappa coefficient calculated the inter-observer agreement. In conventional CT images, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of raters 1 and 2 for the identification of bone metastases were 0.742 and 0.710, 0.981 and 0.981, 0.958 and 0.957, and 0.864 and 0.850, respectively. In water-HAP, they were 1.00 and 1.00, 0.981 and 1.00, 0.969 and 1.00, and 1.00 and 1.00, respectively. In CT, AUCs were 0.861 and 0.845 in each observer. On water-HAP images, AUCs were 0.990 and 1.00. Kappa coefficient was 0.964 for CT and 0.976 for water-HAP images. The combination of CT and water-HAP images significantly increased diagnostic accuracy for detecting bone metastasis. Water-HAP images on DECT may enable accurate initial staging, reduced radiation exposure, and cost.
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.