ArticlePloS one2022
Finding the optimal tube current and iterative reconstruction strength in liver imaging; two needles in one haystack.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Extracellular volume fraction based on dual-layer spectral computed tomography in assessment of gastric cancer: feasibility analysis of low-dose equilibrium phase scanning.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Relationship between pericoronary adipose tissue attenuation value and image reconstruction parameters.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Learning effects in visual grading assessment of model-based reconstruction algorithms in abdominal Computed Tomography.European journal of radiology open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to find the lowest possible tube current and the optimal iterative reconstruction (IR) strength in abdominal imaging. MATERIAL AND
methodsReconstruction software was used to insert noise, simulating the use of a lower tube current. A semi-anthropomorphic abdominal phantom (Quality Assurance in Radiology and Medicine, QSA-543, Moehrendorf, Germany) was used to validate the performance of the ReconCT software (S1 Appendix). Thirty abdominal CT scans performed with a standard protocol (120 kVref, 150 mAsref) scanned at 90 kV, with dedicated contrast media (CM) injection software were selected. There were no other in- or exclusion criteria. The software was used to insert noise as if the scans were performed with 90, 80, 70 and 60% of the full dose. Consequently, the different scans were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and IR strength 2, 3 and 4. Both objective (e.g. Hounsfield units [HU], signal to noise ratio [SNR] and contrast to noise ratio [CNR]) and subjective image quality were evaluated. In addition, lesion detection was graded by two radiologists in consensus in another 30 scans (identical scan protocol) with various liver lesions, reconstructed with IR 3, 4 and 5.
resultsA tube current of 60% still led to diagnostic objective image quality (e.g. SNR and CNR) when IR strength 3 or 4 were used. IR strength 4 was preferred for lesion detection. The subjective image quality was rated highest for the scans performed at 90% with IR 4.
conclusionA tube current reduction of 10-40% is possible in case IR 4 is used, leading to the highest image quality (10%) or still diagnostic image quality (40%), shown by a pairwise comparison in the same patients.
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.