ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021
Evaluation of split-filter dual-energy CT for characterization of urinary stones.
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 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photon-counting CT for bullet material differentiation: applications in forensic radiology.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Influence of a Deep Learning Noise Reduction on the CT Values, Image Noise and Characterization of Kidney and Ureter Stones.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to differentiate uric acid from calcium urinary stones in dual-energy split filter
methodsThirty-four urinary stones (volume 89.0 ± 77.4 mm³; 17 calcium stones, 17 uric acid stones) were scanned in a water-filled phantom using a split-filter equipped CT scanner (SOMATOM Definition Edge, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) in split-filter mode at 120 kVp and sequential-spiral mode at 80 and 140 kVp. Additional DE scans were acquired at 80 and 140 kVp (tin filter) with a dual-source CT scanner (SOMATOM Definition FLASH, Siemens Healthineers). Scans were performed with a CTDIvol of 7.3 mGy in all protocols. Urinary stone categorization was based on dual energy ratio (DER) using an automated 3D segmentation. As reference standard, infrared spectroscopy was used to determine urinary stone composition.
resultsAll three DECT techniques significantly differentiated between uric acid and calcium stones by attenuation values and DERs (
conclusionSplit-filter DECT, sequential-spiral DECT and dual-source DECT all allow for the acquisition of DER to classify urinary stones. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Split-filter DECT enables the differentiation between uric acid and calcium stones despite decreased spectral separation when compared with dual-source and dual-spiral DECT.
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.