Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35328111›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Virtual Non-Contrast Reconstructions of Photon-Counting Detector CT Angiography Datasets as Substitutes for True Non-Contrast Acquisitions in Patients after EVAR-Performance of a Novel Calcium-Preserving Reconstruction Algorithm.

Josua A Decker, Stefanie Bette, Christian Scheurig-Muenkler, Bertram Jehs, Franka Risch, Piotr Woźnicki, Franziska M Braun, Mark Haerting, Claudia Wollny, Thomas J Kroencke and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Josua A DeckerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6876-1373
Stefanie BetteDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Christian Scheurig-MuenklerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Bertram JehsDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5770-0946
Franka RischDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9728-4649
Piotr WoźnickiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Franziska M BraunDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Mark HaertingDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Claudia WollnyDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Thomas J KroenckeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Florian SchwarzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9889-5153
University Hospital Augsburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate virtual-non contrast reconstructions of Photon-Counting Detector (PCD) CT-angiography datasets using a novel calcium-preserving algorithm (VNCPC) vs. the standard algorithm (VNCConv) for their potential to replace unenhanced acquisitions (TNC) in patients after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). 20 EVAR patients who had undergone CTA (unenhanced and arterial phase) on a novel PCD-CT were included. VNCConv- and VNCPC-series were derived from CTA-datasets and intraluminal signal and noise compared. Three readers evaluated image quality, contrast removal, and removal of calcifications/stent parts and assessed all VNC-series for their suitability to replace TNC-series. Image noise was higher in VNC- than in TNC-series (18.6 ± 5.3 HU, 16.7 ± 7.1 HU, and 14.9 ± 7.1 HU for VNCConv-, VNCPC-, and TNC-series, p = 0.006). Subjective image quality was substantially higher in VNCPC- than VNCConv-series (4.2 ± 0.9 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6; p < 0.001). Aortic contrast removal was complete in all VNC-series. Unlike in VNCConv-reconstructions, only minuscule parts of stents or calcifications were erroneously subtracted in VNCPC-reconstructions. Readers considered 95% of VNCPC-series fully or mostly suited to replace TNC-series; for VNCConv-reconstructions, however, only 75% were considered mostly (and none fully) suited for TNC-replacement. VNCPC-reconstructions of PCD-CT-angiography datasets have excellent image quality with complete contrast removal and only minimal erroneous subtractions of stent parts/calcifications. They could replace TNC-series in almost all cases.

Indexed as

CT angiographyEVARPhoton-Counting Detector CTradiation dose reductionvirtual non-contrast reconstructions

Identifiers

PMID35328111
PMCPMC8946873
OpenAlexW4214736402

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.