Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33444367›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre-A phantom study.

Patrizio Barca, Fabio Paolicchi, Giacomo Aringhieri, Federica Palmas, Daniela Marfisi, Maria Evelina Fantacci, Davide Caramella, Marco Giannelli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patrizio BarcaUnit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Pisa, Italy.
Fabio PaolicchiDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Giacomo AringhieriDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Federica PalmasDepartment of Physics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Daniela MarfisiUnit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Pisa, Italy.
Maria Evelina FantacciDepartment of Physics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Davide CaramellaDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Marco GiannelliUnit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4061-0490
University of Pisa · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, given the technological advance in CT imaging and increasing heterogeneity in characteristics of CT scanners, a number of CT scanners with different manufacturers/technologies are often installed in a hospital centre and used by various departments. In this phantom study, a comprehensive assessment of image quality of 5 scanners (from 3 manufacturers and with different models) for head CT imaging, as clinically used at a single hospital centre, was hence carried out. Helical and/or sequential acquisitions of the Catphan-504 phantom were performed, using the scanning protocols (CTDIvol range: 54.7-57.5 mGy) employed by the staff of various Radiology/Neuroradiology departments of our institution for routine head examinations. CT image quality for each scanner/acquisition protocol was assessed through noise level, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), low contrast detectability (LCD) and non-uniformity index analyses. Noise values ranged from 3.5 HU to 5.7 HU across scanners/acquisition protocols. NPS curves differed in terms of peak position (range: 0.21-0.30 mm-1). A substantial variation of CNR values with scanner/acquisition protocol was observed for different contrast inserts. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean value) of CNR values across scanners/acquisition protocols was 18.3%, 31.4%, 34.2%, 30.4% and 30% for teflon, delrin, LDPE, polystyrene and acrylic insert, respectively. An appreciable difference in MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols was revealed, with a coefficient of variation of f50%/f10% of MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols of 10.1%/7.4%. A relevant difference in LCD performance of different scanners/acquisition protocols was found. The range of contrast threshold for a typical object size of 3 mm was 3.7-5.8 HU. Moreover, appreciable differences in terms of NUI values (range: 4.1%-8.3%) were found. The analysis of several quality indices showed a non-negligible variability in head CT imaging capabilities across different scanners/acquisition protocols. This highlights the importance of a physical in-depth characterization of image quality for each CT scanner as clinically used, in order to optimize CT imaging procedures.

Indexed as

Tomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsHumansPhantoms, ImagingSignal-To-Noise RatioTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID33444367
PMCPMC7808662
OpenAlexW3119897858

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.