ArticleScientific reports2023
Impact of radiation dose reduction and iterative image reconstruction on CT-guided spine biopsies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tube current reduction and iterative image reconstruction for computed tomography myelography.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of dose reduction on image quality and confidence for intervention planning and guidance regarding computed tomography (CT)-based intervertebral disc and vertebral body biopsies. We retrospectively analyzed 96 patients who underwent multi-detector CT (MDCT) acquired for the purpose of biopsies, which were either derived from scanning with standard dose (SD) or low dose (LD; using tube current reduction). The SD cases were matched to LD cases considering sex, age, level of biopsy, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images for planning (reconstruction: "IMR1") and periprocedural guidance (reconstruction: "iDose4") were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using Likert scales. Image noise was measured using attenuation values of paraspinal muscle tissue. The dose length product (DLP) was statistically significantly lower for LD scans regarding the planning scans (SD: 13.8 ± 8.2 mGy*cm, LD: 8.1 ± 4.4 mGy*cm, p < 0.01) and the interventional guidance scans (SD: 43.0 ± 48.8 mGy*cm, LD: 18.4 ± 7.3 mGy*cm, p < 0.01). Image quality, contrast, determination of the target structure, and confidence for planning or intervention guidance were rated good to perfect for SD and LD scans, showing no statistically significant differences between SD and LD scans (p > 0.05). Image noise was similar between SD and LD scans performed for planning of the interventional procedures (SD: 14.62 ± 2.83 HU vs. LD: 15.45 ± 3.22 HU, p = 0.24). Use of a LD protocol for MDCT-guided biopsies along the spine is a practical alternative, maintaining overall image quality and confidence. Increasing availability of model-based iterative reconstruction in clinical routine may facilitate further radiation dose reductions.
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.