ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021
Head and neck single- and dual-energy CT: differences in radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source CT.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining imaging parameters for dual-energy cone-beam computed tomography in image-guided radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Virtual unenhanced dual-energy computed tomography for photon radiotherapy: The effect on dose distribution and cone-beam computed tomography based position verification.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Ultra-High-Resolution CT of the Head and Neck with Deep Learning Reconstruction-Assessment of Image Quality and Radiation Exposure and Intraindividual Comparison with Normal-Resolution CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Improved precision of noise estimation in CT with a volume-based approach.European radiology experimental · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare radiation dose and image quality of single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) head and neck CT examinations performed with second- and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) in matched patient cohorts.
methods200 patients (mean age 55.1 ± 16.9 years) who underwent venous phase head and neck CT with a vendor-preset protocol were retrospectively divided into four equal groups (
resultsEffective radiation dose (ED) was not significantly different between SECT and DECT acquisition for each scanner generation (
conclusionContrast-enhanced head and neck DECT can be performed with second- and third-generation DSCT systems without radiation penalty or impaired image quality compared with SECT, while third-generation DSCT is the most dose efficient acquisition method. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Differences in radiation dose between SECT and DECT of the dose-vulnerable head and neck region using DSCT systems have not been evaluated so far. Therefore, this study directly compares radiation dose and image quality of standard SECT and DECT protocols of second- and third-generation DSCT platforms.
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.