Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33606565›Full record

ReviewRadiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc

Recognizing and Minimizing Artifacts at Dual-Energy CT.

Anushri Parakh, Chansik An, Simon Lennartz, Prabhakar Rajiah, Benjamin M Yeh, Frank J Simeone, Dushyant V Sahani, Avinash R Kambadakone

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anushri ParakhFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).ORCID 0000-0002-4778-2383
Chansik AnFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).ORCID 0000-0002-0484-6658
Simon LennartzFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).
Prabhakar RajiahFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).ORCID 0000-0001-7538-385X
Benjamin M YehFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).
Frank J SimeoneFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).ORCID 0000-0003-2779-7534
Dushyant V SahaniFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).
Avinash R KambadakoneFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.).ORCID 0000-0001-6714-9190

Funding

Nanoparticle CT Contrast Agent for New Capabilities in Tumor Detection, Staging, and Therapy Planning and ResponseR01CA226868 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI YEH, BENJAMIN M · 2019 to 2022
$3.1M
Augmenting Dual Energy CT for Novel Contrast AgentsR42DK104580 · NIDDK · NEXTRAST, INC. · PI YEH, BENJAMIN M · 2017 to 2019
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA226868NIDDK NIH HHS R42 DK104580
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dual-energy CT (DECT) is an exciting innovation in CT technology with profound capabilities to improve diagnosis and add value to patient care. Significant advances in this technology over the past decade have improved our ability to successfully adopt DECT into the clinical routine. To enable effective use of DECT, one must be aware of the pitfalls and artifacts related to this technology. Understanding the underlying technical basis of artifacts and the strategies to mitigate them requires optimization of scan protocols and parameters. The ability of radiologists and technologists to anticipate their occurrence and provide recommendations for proper selection of patients, intravenous and oral contrast media, and scan acquisition parameters is key to obtaining good-quality DECT images. In addition, choosing appropriate reconstruction algorithms such as image kernel, postprocessing parameters, and appropriate display settings is critical for preventing quantitative and qualitative interpretive errors. Therefore, knowledge of the appearances of these artifacts is essential to prevent errors and allows maximization of the potential of DECT. In this review article, the authors aim to provide a comprehensive and practical overview of possible artifacts that may be encountered at DECT across all currently available commercial clinical platforms. They also provide a pictorial overview of the diagnostic pitfalls and outline strategies for mitigating or preventing the occurrence of artifacts, when possible. The broadening scope of DECT applications necessitates up-to-date familiarity with these technologies to realize their full diagnostic potential.

Indexed as

ArtifactsRadiography, Dual-Energy Scanned ProjectionAlgorithmsContrast MediaHumansTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID33606565
PMCPMC7924411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.