Trial reportJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Refining the radiation and contrast medium dose in weight-grouped scanning protocols for coronary CT angiography.
Trial report in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Refining the radiation and contrast medium dose in weight-grouped scanning protocols for coronary CT angiography.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Trial
- Optimizing coronary CT angiography in patients with delayed contrast arrival using a free-breathing, high-threshold bolus-tracking protocol.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo refine the currently used, weight-grouped protocol for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), in terms of the radiation and contrast medium dose, through clinical evaluation.
methodsFollowing the current routine setting that varies between three weight groups (group A: 55-65 kg, group B: 66-75 kg, group C: 76-85 kg), three additional reduction protocols were proposed to each group, with different combinations of lowered tube voltage (70-100 kVp), tube current (100-220 mAs), and iodine delivery rate (0.8-1.5 gI/s). A total of 321 patients scheduled for CCTA due to suspected coronary artery disease were enrolled, who were randomly assigned to one of the four subgroups of settings under the corresponding weight group. The resulting objective image quality was compared by measuring the contrast-to-noise ratio and signal-to-noise ratio. Subjective image quality was graded by two radiologists using a 4-point Likert scale, on a total of 3848 segments. The optimal protocol for each weight group was determined with respect to the image quality and the applied radiation dose.
resultsFor all three groups, no significant difference was noticed in objective images quality between subgroups of dose settings (all p > 0.05). The average score on subjective image quality was ≥3 for every subgroup, while the percentage of score 4 showed greater dependence on the setting, ranging from 83.2% to 91.5%, and was chosen to be the determining factor. The optimal dose settings were found to be 80 kVp, 150 mAs, and 1.0 gI/s for patients of 55-75 kg in weight, and 100 kVp, 170 mAs, and 1.5 gI/s for those of 76-85 kg.
conclusionIt is feasible to refine the currently used, weight-grouped protocol for CCTA in terms of radiation and contrast medium dose, by use of an optimization strategy where the balance between dose and image quality can be improved in a routine clinical setting.
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.