ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Comparison of detection of trauma-related injuries using combined "all-in-one" fused images and conventionally reconstructed images in acute trauma CT.
Article in European radiology, 2022. 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.
- [A semi-supervised network-based tissue-aware contrast enhancement method for CT images].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the accuracy of lesion detection of trauma-related injuries using combined "all-in-one" fused (AIO) and conventionally reconstructed images (CR) in acute trauma CT.
methodsIn this retrospective study, trauma CT of 66 patients (median age 47 years, range 18-96 years; 20 female (30.3%)) were read using AIO and CR. Images were independently reviewed by 4 blinded radiologists (two residents and two consultants) for trauma-related injuries in 22 regions. Sub-analyses were performed to analyze the influence of experience (residents vs. consultants) and body region (chest, abdomen, skeletal structures) on lesion detection. Paired t-test was used to compare the accuracy of lesion detection. The effect size was calculated (Cohen's d). Linear mixed-effects model with patients as the fixed effect and random forest models were used to investigate the effect of experience, reconstruction/image processing, and body region on lesion detection.
resultsReading time of residents was significantly faster using AIO (AIO: 266 ± 72 s, CR: 318 ± 113 s; p < 0.001; d = 0.46) while no significant difference was observed in the accuracy of lesion detection (AIO: 93.5 ± 6.0%, CR: 94.6 ± 6.0% p = 0.092; d = - 0.21). Reading time of consultants showed no significant difference (AIO: 283 ± 82 s, CR: 274 ± 95 s; p = 0.067; d = 0.16). Accuracy was significantly higher using CR; however, the difference and effect size were very small (AIO 95.1 ± 4.9%, CR: 97.3 ± 3.7%, p = 0.002; d = - 0.39). The linear mixed-effects model showed only minor effect of image processing/reconstruction for lesion detection.
conclusionsResidents at the emergency department might benefit from faster reading time without sacrificing lesion detection rate using AIO for trauma CT. KEY POINTS: • Image fusion techniques decrease the reading time of acute trauma CT without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy.
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.