ArticleActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)2022
Visualizing patterns of intervertebral disc damage with dual-energy computed tomography: assessment of diagnostic accuracy in an ex vivo spine biophantom.
Article in Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of intervertebral disc degeneration using dual-energy computed tomography collagen maps: a comparative study with MRI Pfirrmann grading.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Collagen-sensitive dual-energy-CT as a quantitative tool for tendinopathy assessment: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Spectral CT electron density for evaluation of lumbar intervertebral disk degeneration.PloS one · 2026Article
- Phantom studies in medical imaging (PSMI): a guide with recommendations and checklist.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of dual energy computed tomography for suspected pyogenic spondylodiscitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreviously, dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has been established for imaging spinal fractures as an alternative modality to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PURPOSE: To analyze the diagnostic accuracy of DECT in visualizing intervertebral disc (IVD) damage. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe lumbar spine of a Great Dane dog was used as an ex vivo biophantom. DECT was performed as sequential volume technique on a single-source CT scanner. IVDs were imaged before and after an injection of sodium chloride solution and after anterior discectomy in single-source sequential volume DECT technique using 80 and 135 kVp. Chondroitin/Collagen maps (cMaps) were reconstructed at 1 mm and compared with standard CT. Standardized regions of interest (ROI) were placed in the anterior anulus fibrosus, nucleus pulposus, and other sites. Three blinded readers classified all images as intact disc, nucleus lesion, or anulus lesion. Additionally, clinical examples from patients with IVD lesions were retrospectively identified from the radiological database.
resultsInterrater reliability was almost perfect with a Fleiss kappa of 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.835) for DECT, compared with 0.780 (95% CI 0.778-0.782) for standard CT. For overall detection accuracy of IVD, DECT achieved 91.0% sensitivity (95% CI 83.6-95.8) and 92.0% specificity (95% CI 80.8-97.8). Standard CT showed 91.0% sensitivity (95% CI 83.6-95.8) and 78.0% specificity (95% CI 64.0-88.5).
conclusionDECT reliably identified IVD damage in an ex vivo biophantom. Clinical examples of patients with different lesions illustrate the accurate depiction of IVD microstructure. These data emphasize the diagnostic potential of DECT cMaps.
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.