ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Low-dose dual-energy CT for stone characterization: a systematic comparison of two generations of split-filter single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Misinterpretations about CT numbers, material decomposition, and elemental quantification.European radiology · 2025Article
- Material decomposition approaches for monosodium urate (MSU) quantification in gouty arthritis: a (bio)phantom study.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Development and external validation of a machine learning-based model to classify uric acid stones in patients with kidney stones of Hounsfield units < 800.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Dual-energy CT kidney stone characterization-can diagnostic accuracy be achieved at low radiation dose?European radiology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of split-filter dual-energy CT for characterization of urinary stones.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare noise texture and accuracy to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid urinary stones among four different single-source and dual-source DECT approaches in an ex vivo phantom study.
methodsThirty-two urinary stones embedded in gelatin were mounted on a Styrofoam disk and placed into a water-filled phantom. The phantom was imaged using four different DECT approaches: (A) dual-source DECT (DS-DE); (B) 1st generation split-filter single-source DECT (SF1-TB); (C) 2nd generation split-filter single-source DECT (SF2-TB) and (D) 2nd generation split-filter single-source DECT using serial acquisitions (SF2-TS). Two different radiation doses (3 mGy and 6 mGy) were used. Noise texture was compared by assessing the average spatial frequency (f
resultsNNPS demonstrated comparable noise texture among A, C, and D (f
conclusionAccuracy to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid stones was high among four single-source and dual-source DECT approaches for low- and routine dose DECT scans. Noise texture differed only slightly for the first-generation split-filter approach.
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.