Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33778892›Full record

ReviewRadiation protection dosimetry2021

IMAGE QUALITY AND POTENTIAL DOSE REDUCTION USING ADVANCED MODELED ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION (ADMIRE) IN ABDOMINAL CT - A REVIEW.

B Kataria, J Nilsson Althén, Ö Smedby, A Persson, H Sökjer, M Sandborg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors.

B KatariaDepartment of Radiology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4013-4615
J Nilsson AlthénDepartment of Health, Medicine & Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Ö SmedbyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems (MTH), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7750-1917
A PerssonDepartment of Radiology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9446-6981
H SökjerDepartment of Health, Medicine & Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
M SandborgDepartment of Health, Medicine & Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3352-8330

Funding

ALF LiO-602731FoU LIO-724631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction methods have served the computed tomography (CT) community well for over 40 years. With the increased use of CT during the last decades, efforts to minimise patient exposure, while maintaining sufficient or improved image quality, have led to the development of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithms from several vendors. The usefulness of the advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) (Siemens Healthineers) MBIR in abdominal CT is reviewed and its noise suppression and/or dose reduction possibilities explored. Quantitative and qualitative methods with phantom and human subjects were used. Assessment of the quality of phantom images will not always correlate positively with those of patient images, particularly at the higher strength of the ADMIRE algorithm. With few exceptions, ADMIRE Strength 3 typically allows for substantial noise reduction compared to FBP and hence to significant (≈30%) patient dose reductions. The size of the dose reductions depends on the diagnostic task.

Indexed as

Drug TaperingRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID33778892
PMCPMC8507455

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.