ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2022
Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work describes a measurement method for assessing dose-related image-quality of CT scans based on the difference detail curve (DDC) method, and showcases its use in a low contrast setting. The method is based on a phantom consisting of elliptical slices of different sizes into which contrast object modules can be inserted. These modules contain contrast objects based on (synthetic) resin mixtures with sucrose (native) or sodium iodine (contrast medium). Mixing ratios are provided to achieve a range of clinically relevant CT-numbers with these materials. The phantom is characterized in terms of contrast accuracy, energy dependency and long-term drift with satisfying results. Contrast accuracy and energy dependency are similar to that of water or soft tissue. Image quality of 655 scans of the phantom acquired at 30 different clinical institutions and with 16 different CT scanner models from 4 manufacturers was assessed by calculating a difference detail curve (DDC) from evaluation of up to 5 human observers using a custom-made software (RadiVates) described in this work. Based on these measurements, inter-observer variability was quantified using a bootstrap method and was shown to be a large contributor to the overall variability. This work demonstrates that assessment of CT image quality is feasible with the aforementioned phantom and DDC method.
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.