ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Heart Rate-Dependent Degree of Motion Artifacts in Coronary CT Angiography Acquired by a Novel Purpose-Built Cardiac CT Scanner.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Learning-Based Cardiac CT Coronary Motion Correction Method with Temporal Weight Adjustment: Clinical Data Evaluation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of photon-counting and energy-integrating detector CT to identify obstructive coronary artery disease.European radiology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of alternative trigger deletion to improve 64-slice coronary computed tomography angiography quality in patients with increased heart rate.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Optimization of acquisition phase and acquisition time window of coronary artery CT angiography with different heart rates based on prospective ECG-gating.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- The Impact of Novel Reconstruction Algorithms on Calcium Scoring: Results on a Dedicated Cardiac CT Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Coronary CTA Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Quicker Examination Protocol with Preserved Image Quality Using a Dedicated Cardiac Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although reaching target heart rate (HR) before coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is still of importance, adequate HR control remains a challenge for many patients. Purpose-built cardiac scanners may provide optimal image quality at higher HRs by further improving temporal resolution. We aimed to compare the amount of motion artifacts on CCTA acquired using a dedicated cardiac CT (DCCT) compared to a conventional multidetector CT (MDCT) scanner. We compared 80 DCCT images to 80 MDCT scans matched by sex, age, HR, and coronary dominance. Image quality was graded on a per-patient, per-vessel and per-segment basis. Motion artifacts were assessed using Likert scores (1: non-diagnostic, 2: severe artifacts, 3: mild artifacts, 4: no artifacts). Patients were stratified into four groups according to HR (<60/min, 60−65/min, 66−70/min and >70/min). Overall, 2328 coronary segments were evaluated. DCCT demonstrated superior overall image quality compared to MDCT (3.7 ± 0.4 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7, p < 0.001). DCCT images yielded higher Likert scores in all HR ranges, which was statistically significant in the 60−65/min, 66−70/min and >70/min ranges (3.9 ± 0.2 vs. 3.7 ± 0.2, p = 0.008; 3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.6, p = 0.048 and 3.5 ± 0.4 vs. 2.7 ± 0.7, p < 0.001, respectively). Using a dedicated cardiac scanner results in fewer motion artifacts, which may allow optimal image quality even in cases of high HRs.
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.