ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2021
COMPARISON OF METAL ARTEFACTS FOR DIFFERENT DUAL ENERGY CT TECHNIQUES.
Article 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 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.
- Assessment of metal artifacts from titanium wrist prostheses: photon-counting versus energy-integrating detector CT.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Dual-Energy Computed Tomography, a New Metal Artifact Reduction Technique for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is There a Light in the Darkness?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Application of metal artifact reduction algorithm in reducing metal artifacts in post-surgery pediatric low radiation dose spine computed tomography (CT) images.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compares dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) images of a phantom including different material inserts and with additional lateral titanium or stainless steel inserts, simulating bilateral hip prostheses. Dual-source (DS) and fast kV-switching (FKS) DECT with/without metal artefact reduction (MAR) were compared with regards to virtually monoenergetic CT number accuracy and the depiction of different materials. Streak artefacts were observed between the metal inserts that were more severe with steel compared to titanium inserts. The artefact severity and CT number accuracy depended on the photon energy (keV) for both DECT techniques. While MAR generally increased the CT number accuracy and material depiction within the streak artefacts, it sometimes decreased the accuracy outside the streak artefacts for both DS and FKS. FKS depicted the metal inserts more accurately than DS with regards to both CT numbers and external diameter.
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.