ArticlePloS one2021
Single-energy versus dual-energy imaging during CT-guided biopsy using dedicated metal artifact reduction algorithm in an in vivo pig model.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- CT-Guided Lung Biopsy Using Dual-Energy Iodine Mapping to Target Lung Masses with Necrotic Tissue-A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Needle artifact reduction during interventional CT procedures using a silver filter.BMC biomedical engineering · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate dual-energy CT (DE) and dedicated metal artifact reduction algorithms (iMAR) during CT-guided biopsy in comparison to single-energy CT (SE).
methodsA trocar was placed in the liver of six pigs. CT acquisitions were performed with SE and dose equivalent DE at four dose levels(1.7-13.5mGy). Iterative reconstructions were performed with and without iMAR. ROIs were placed in four positions e.g. at the trocar tip(TROCAR) and liver parenchyma adjacent to the trocar tip(LIVER-1) by two independent observers for quantitative analysis using CT numbers, noise, SNR and CNR. Qualitative image analysis was performed regarding overall image quality and artifacts generated by iMAR.
resultsThere were no significant differences in CT numbers between DE and SE at TROCAR and LIVER-1 irrespective of iMAR. iMAR significantly reduced metal artifacts at LIVER-1 for all exposure settings for DE and SE(p = 0.02-0.04), but not at TROCAR. SNR, CNR and noise were comparable for DE and SE. SNR was best for high dose levels of 6.7/13.5mGy. Mean difference in the Blant-Altman analysis was -8.43 to 0.36. Cohen's kappa for qualitative interreader-agreement was 0.901.
conclusionsiMAR independently reduced metal artifacts more effectively and efficiently than CT acquisition in DE at any dose setting and its application is feasible during CT-guided liver biopsy.
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.