ArticleIranian journal of medical sciences2022
Evaluation of Ultra-Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography Images in Detecting Lung Lesions Related to COVID-19: A Prospective Study.
Article in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safe, Smart, and Scalable: A Prospective Multicenter Study on Low-Dose CT and CTSS for Emergency Risk Stratification in COVID-19.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Ultra-Low Dose Computed Tomography Imaging in Quantifying Bone Trauma and Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluating Lung Changes in Long COVID: Ultra-Low-Dose vs. Standard-Dose CT Chest.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Article
- Ultra-Low Dose CT Chest in Acute COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Pilot Study from India.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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest computed tomography (CT) in comparison with the routine dose (RD) CT images in detecting lung lesions related to COVID-19. Methods: A prospective study was conducted during April-September 2020 at Shahid Faghihi Hospital affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. In total, 273 volunteers with suspected COVID-19 participated in the study and successively underwent RD-CT and ULD-CT chest scans. Two expert radiologists qualitatively evaluated the images. Dose assessment was performed by determining volume CT dose index, dose length product, and size-specific dose estimate. Data analysis was performed using a ranking test and kappa coefficient (κ). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Lung lesions could be detected with both RD-CT and ULD-CT images in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 (κ=1.0, P=0.016). The estimated effective dose for the RD-CT protocol was 22-fold higher than in the ULD-CT protocol. In the case of the ULD-CT protocol, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value for the detection of consolidation were 60%, 83%, 80%, and 20%, respectively. Comparably, in the case of RD-CT, these percentages for the detection of ground-glass opacity (GGO) were 62%, 66%, 66%, and 18%, respectively. Assuming the result of real-time polymerase chain reaction as true-positive, analysis of the receiver-operating characteristic curve for GGO detected using the ULD-CT protocol showed a maximum area under the curve of 0.78. Conclusion: ULD-CT, with 94% dose reduction, can be an alternative to RD-CT to detect lung lesions for COVID-19 diagnosis and follow-up.An earlier preliminary report of a similar work with a lower sample size was submitted to the arXive as a preprint. The preprint is cited as: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03347.
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.