ArticleScientific reports2022
Low-dose multi-detector computed tomography for periradicular infiltrations at the cervical and lumbar spine.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed Tomography of the Spine : Systematic Review on Acquisition and Reconstruction Techniques to Reduce Radiation Dose.Clinical neuroradiology · 2023Pooled it
- Tube current reduction and iterative image reconstruction for computed tomography myelography.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of radiation dose reduction and iterative image reconstruction on CT-guided spine biopsies.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periradicular infiltrations are frequently performed in daily neuroradiological routine and are often guided by multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), thus leading to radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate MDCT with low dose (LD) and model-based iterative reconstruction for image-guided periradicular infiltrations at the cervical and lumbosacral spine. We retrospectively analyzed 204 MDCT scans acquired for the purpose of cervical or lumbosacral periradicular interventions, which were either derived from scanning with standard dose (SD; 40 mA and 120 kVp) or LD (20-30 mA and 120 kVp) using a 128-slice MDCT scanner. The SD cases were matched to the LD cases considering sex, age, level of infiltration, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images were reconstructed using model-based iterative image reconstruction and were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using 5- or 3-point Likert scales (score of 1 reflects the best value per category). Furthermore, noise in imaging data was quantitatively measured by the standard deviation (StDev) of muscle tissue. The dose length product (DLP) was statistically significantly lower for LD scans (6.75 ± 6.43 mGy*cm vs. 10.16 ± 7.70 mGy*cm; p < 0.01; reduction of 33.5%). Image noise was comparable between LD and SD scans (13.13 ± 3.66 HU vs. 13.37 ± 4.08 HU; p = 0.85). Overall image quality was scored as good to very good with only minimal artifacts according to both readers, and determination of the nerve root was possible in almost all patients (LD vs. SD: p > 0.05 for all items). This resulted in high confidence for intervention planning as well as periprocedural intervention guidance for both SD and LD scans. The inter-reader agreement was at least substantial (weighted Cohen's κ ≥ 0.62), except for confidence in intervention planning for LD scans (κ = 0.49). In conclusion, considerable dose reduction for planning and performing periradicular infiltrations with MDCT using model-based iterative image reconstruction is feasible and can be performed without clinically relevant drawbacks regarding image quality or confidence for planning.
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.