ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Utility of dual energy CT angiography in the evaluation of acute non-variceal gastrointestinal hemorrhage: comparison with digital subtraction angiography.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of split bolus dual energy CT and standard multiphase CT in assessing vascular invasion in patients with biliary malignancies: a randomized study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of the stability of deep vein thrombosis based on computed tomography energy spectrum.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Effects of contrast medium injection pressure on angiographic image quality.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the utility of dual energy CT angiography (DECTA) in acute non-variceal gastrointestinal hemorrhage (ANVGIH) compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methods111 Patients (mean age: 39.2 years; 94 males) of ANVGIH who underwent both DECTA and DSA between January 2016 and September 2021 were included. Virtual monochromatic (VM) images at 10 keV increments from 40 to 70 keV and blended (120kVp equivalent) images of arterial phase of DECTA were evaluated independently by two readers blinded to DSA information. Quantitative analysis included measurement of attenuation in the major arteries (abdominal aorta, celiac artery, superior mesenteric artery), suspected vascular lesion, and lesion feeding artery to calculate contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Qualitative analysis assessed the image quality of each data set using a 3-point Likert scale. Findings on DSA were evaluated by a third reader and both DECTA and DSA were compared.
resultsOn linear blended images, vascular lesion was identified by reader 1 in 88 (79.3%) and by reader 2 in 87 (78.4%) patients and DSA showed lesion in 92 (82.9%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of blended images and VM images of DECTA for lesion detection were not significantly different from each other. The CNR and SNR of arteries, vascular lesion and feeding artery were significantly higher at 70 keV (p < 0.005) compared to blended and other VM images. Although subjective scores for image quality were higher for 60 keV images by both readers, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.3). The interobserver agreement was mostly good.
conclusionIn the assessment of ANVGIH, the 60 keV and 70 keV VM images improved the image quality and contrast, respectively, but there was no increase in diagnostic accuracy of VM image datasets compared to linearly blended images. Hence, the diagnostic utility of DECTA in ANVGIH is still uncertain.
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.