ArticlePolish journal of radiology2022
The role of ultra-low-dose computed tomography in the detection of pulmonary pathologies: a prospective observational study.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term monitoring of CFTR modulator therapy in adults and children with cystic fibrosis using low and ultra-low-dose lung CT.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Improving visibility of small anatomical details on low and ultra-low dose computed tomography with artificial intelligence-based image reconstructions.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2026Article
- Striking the balance: optimisation of diagnostic quality and radiation safety in chest CT imaging.European radiology · 2024Article
- New developments in the imaging of lung cancer.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Review
- Detection, measurement, and diagnosis of lung nodules by ultra-low-dose CT in lung cancer screening: a systematic review.BJR open · 2024Article
- A radiomics-based logistic regression model for the assessment of emphysema severity.Tuberkuloz ve toraks · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the image noise, radiation dose, and image quality of ultra-low-dose computed tomography (CT) and standard CT in the imaging of pulmonary pathologies. Material and methods: This observational study was performed between July 2020 and August 2021. All enrolled patients underwent both ultra-low-dose and standard CTs. The image noise, image quality for normal pulmonary structures, presence or absence of various pulmonary lesions, and radiation dose were recorded for each of the scans. The findings of standard-dose CT were regarded as the gold standard and compared with that of ultra-low-dose CT. Results: A total of 124 patients were included in the study. The image noise was higher in the ultra-low-dose CT compared to standard-dose CT. The overall image quality was determined to be diagnostic in 100% of standard CT images and in 96.77% of ultra-low-dose CT images with proportional worsening of the image quality as the body mass index (BMI) range was increased. Ultra-low-dose CT offered higher (> 90%) sensitivity for lesions like consolidation (97%), pleural effusion (95%), fibrosis (92%), and solid pulmonary nodules (91%). The effective radiation dose (mSv) was many times lower in ultra-low-dose CT when compared to standard-dose CT (mean ± SD: 0.50 ± 0.005 vs. 3.99 ± 1.57). Conclusions: The radiation dose of ultra-low-dose chest CT was almost equal to that of a chest X-ray. It could be used for the screening and/or follow-up of patients with solid pulmonary nodules (> 3 mm) and consolidation.
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.