Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36412684›Full record

ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2022

DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study.

Fumihito Toshima, Norihide Yoneda, Kanako Terada, Dai Inoue, Toshifumi Gabata

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 63% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fumihito ToshimaDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 13-1, Takara-Machi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Ishikawa, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2609-8985
Norihide YonedaDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 13-1, Takara-Machi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Ishikawa, Japan.
Kanako TeradaDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 13-1, Takara-Machi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Ishikawa, Japan.
Dai InoueDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 13-1, Takara-Machi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Ishikawa, Japan.
Toshifumi GabataDepartment of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 13-1, Takara-Machi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Ishikawa, Japan.
Kanazawa University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluating the similarity between two entities such as primary and suspected metastatic lesions using quantitative dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) numbers may be useful. However, the criteria for the similarity between two entities based on DECT numbers remain unclear. We therefore considered the possibility that a similarity in DECT numbers within the same organ could provide suitable standards. Thus, we assumed that the variation in DECT numbers within a single organ is sufficiently minimal to be considered clinically equivalent. Therefore, the purpose of this preliminary study is to investigate the differences in DECT numbers within upper abdominal organs. This retrospective study included 30 patients with data from hepatic protocol DECT scans. DECT numbers of the following parameters were collected: (a, b) 70 and 40 keV CT values, (c) slope, (d) effective Z, and (e, f) iodine and water concentration. The agreement of DECT numbers obtained from two regions of interest in the same organ (liver, spleen, and kidney) were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. The diagnostic ability of each DECT parameter to distinguish between the same or different organs was also assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The 95% limits of agreement within the same organ exhibited the narrowest value range on delayed phase (DP) CT [(c) -11.2-8.3%, (d) -2.0-1.5%, (e) -11.3-8.4%, and (f) -0.59-0.62%]. The diagnostic ability was notably high when using differences in DECT numbers on portal venous (PVP) and DP images (the area under the curve of DP: 0.987-0.999 in (c)-(f)). Using the variability in DECT numbers in the same organ as a criterion for defining similarity may be helpful in making a differential diagnosis by comparing the DECT numbers of two entities.

Indexed as

IodineTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaFeasibility StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaIodinecomputed tomography attenuation curveDECT numbersdual-energy computed tomographyeffective Ziodine concentrationquantitative analysiswater concentration

Identifiers

PMID36412684
PMCPMC9680450
OpenAlexW4308210387

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.