Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35184974›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2022

Christian Sommer, Ismail Özden, Mathias S Weyland, Carolina Duran, Gerd Lutters, Stephan Scheidegger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christian SommerZHAW School of Engineering, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland.
Ismail ÖzdenFachstelle Strahlenschutz, Kantonsspital Aarau, 5000 Aarau, Switzerland.
Mathias S WeylandZHAW School of Engineering, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland. Electronic address: weyl@zhaw.ch.
Carolina DuranZHAW School of Engineering, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland.
Gerd LuttersFachstelle Strahlenschutz, Kantonsspital Aarau, 5000 Aarau, Switzerland.
Stephan ScheideggerZHAW School of Engineering, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedFeasibility StudiesHumansPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedCT image qualityCT phantomDifference detail curveLow contrast CT

Identifiers

PMID35184974
PMCPMC9948851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.