Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35885585›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Dual-Energy CT for the Detection of Portal Vein Thrombosis: Improved Diagnostic Performance Using Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstructions.

Simon S Martin, Jetlir Kolaneci, Rouben Czwikla, Christian Booz, Leon D Gruenewald, Moritz H Albrecht, Zachary M Thompson, Lukas Lenga, Ibrahim Yel, Thomas J Vogl and 2 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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Spectral CT: Current Liver Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Simon S MartinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Jetlir KolaneciDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Rouben CzwiklaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Christian BoozDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Leon D GruenewaldDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7959-5008
Moritz H AlbrechtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Zachary M ThompsonDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Lukas LengaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Ibrahim YelDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Thomas J VoglDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.
Julian L WichmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5724-7344
Vitali KochDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6915-5906
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEMedical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the diagnostic performance of noise-optimized virtual monoenergetic images (VMI+) in dual-energy CT (DECT) of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) compared to standard reconstructions. Method: This retrospective, single-center study included 107 patients (68 men; mean age, 60.1 ± 10.7 years) with malignant or cirrhotic liver disease and suspected PVT who had undergone contrast-enhanced portal-phase DECT of the abdomen. Linearly blended (M_0.6) and virtual monoenergetic images were calculated using both standard VMI and noise-optimized VMI+ algorithms in 20 keV increments from 40 to 100 keV. Quantitative measurements were performed in the portal vein for objective contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) calculation. The image series showing the greatest CNR were further assessed for subjective image quality and diagnostic accuracy of PVT detection by two blinded radiologists. Results: PVT was present in 38 subjects. VMI+ reconstructions at 40 keV revealed the best objective image quality (CNR, 9.6 ± 4.3) compared to all other image reconstructions (p < 0.01). In the standard VMI series, CNR peaked at 60 keV (CNR, 4.7 ± 2.1). Qualitative image parameters showed the highest image quality rating scores for the 60 keV VMI+ series (median, 4) (p ≤ 0.03). The greatest diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of PVT was found for the 40 keV VMI+ series (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 96%) compared to M_0.6 images (sensitivity, 87%; specificity, 92%), 60 keV VMI (sensitivity, 87%; specificity, 97%), and 60 keV VMI+ reconstructions (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 97%) (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: Low-keV VMI+ reconstructions resulted in significantly improved diagnostic performance for the detection of PVT compared to other DECT reconstruction algorithms.

Indexed as

diagnostic imaginglivermultidetector computed tomographyportal veinthrombosis

Identifiers

PMID35885585
PMCPMC9317258
OpenAlexW4285012689

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.