ArticlePloS one2021
Comparison study of image quality at various radiation doses for CT venography using advanced modeled iterative reconstruction.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared the image quality according to the radiation dose on computed tomography (CT) venography at 80 kVp using advanced modeled iterative reconstruction for deep vein thrombus and other specific clinical conditions considering standard-, low-, and ultralow-dose CT.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 105 consecutive CT venography examinations were included using a third-generation dual-source scanner in the dual-source mode in tubes A (reference mAs, 210 mAs at 70%) and B (reference mAs, 90 mAs at 30%) at a fixed 80 kVp. Two radiologists independently reviewed each observation of standard- (100% radiation dose), low- (70%), and ultralow-dose (30%) CT. The objective quality of large veins and subjective image quality regarding lower-extremity veins and deep vein thrombus were compared between images according to the dose. In addition, the CT dose index volumes were displayed from the images.
resultsFrom the patients, 24 presented deep vein thrombus in 69 venous segments of CT examinations. Standard-dose CT provided the lowest image noise at the inferior vena cava and femoral vein compared with low- and ultralow-dose CT (p < 0.001). There were no differences regarding subjective image quality between the images of popliteal and calf veins at the three doses (e.g., 3.8 ± 0.7, right popliteal vein, p = 0.977). The image quality of the 69 deep vein thrombus segments showed equally slightly higher scores in standard- and low-dose CT (4.0 ± 0.2) than in ultralow-dose CT (3.9 ± 0.4). The CT dose index volumes were 4.4 ± 0.6, 3.1 ± 0.4, and 1.3 ± 0.2 mGy for standard-, low-, and ultralow-dose CT, respectively.
conclusionsLow- and ultralow-dose CT venography at 80 kVp using an advanced model based iterative reconstruction algorithm allows to evaluate deep vein thrombus and perform follow-up examinations while showing an acceptable image quality and reducing the radiation dose.
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.