ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021
Ultra-high resolution computed tomography of joints: practical recommendations for acquisition protocol optimization.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Value and Research Prospects of 1024 Matrix Optimization in 64-Slice Cerebral CTA for Perforating Artery Visualisation.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Trabecular bone analysis: ultra-high-resolution CT goes far beyond high-resolution CT and gets closer to micro-CT (a study using Canon Medical CT devices).Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Photon-counting CT of elbow joint fractures: image quality in a simulated post-trauma setting with off-center positioning.European radiology experimental · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the influence on the spatial resolution of various Ultra-high-resolution computed tomography (CT) parameters and provide practical recommendations for acquisition protocol optimization in musculoskeletal imaging.
methodsAll acquisitions were performed with an Ultra-high resolution scanner, and variations of the following parameters were evaluated: field-of-view (150-300 mm), potential (80-140 KVp), current (25-250 mAs), focal spot size (0.4×0.5 to 0.8×1.3 mm
resultsUnder the conditions studied, the factor that most intensely influenced spatial resolution was the matrix size (additional visualization of up to 8 lp/cm). Increasing the matrix from 512×512 to 2048×2048 led to a 28.2% increase in TTF10% values with a high-dose protocol and a 5.6% increase with a low-dose protocol with no change in the number of visually distinguishable line pairs. The second most important factor affecting spatial resolution was the tube output (29.6% TTF10% gain and 5 additional lp/cm visualized), followed by the reconstruction algorithm choice and lateral displacement (both with a 4 lp/cm gain). Decreasing the slice thickness from 0.5 to 0.25 mm, led to an increase of 3 lp/cm (from 17 to 20 lp/cm) and a 17.3% increase in TTF10% values with no change in the "in-plane" spatial resolution.
conclusionsThis study provides practical recommendations for spatial resolution optimization using Ultra-high-resolution CT.
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.