ArticleJournal of medical physics
Evaluation of the Effects of Differences in Metal Artifact Type and Location on Image Quality in Computed Tomography Scans.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artifacts in computed tomography scans distort anatomical information and prevent an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, this study aims to determine the most effective method for reducing metal-induced artifacts by evaluating the effects of the metal artifact type and location, and the tube voltage on the image quality. Fe and Cu wires were inserted into a Virtual Water™ phantom at 6.5 and 11 cm distances from the center point (DPs). The contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were calculated to compare the images. The results reveal higher CNRs and SNRs when using standard and Smart metal artifact reduction (Smart MAR) algorithms for Cu and Fe insertions, respectively. The standard algorithm leads to a higher CNR and SNR for Fe and Cu at DPs of 6.5 and 11 cm, respectively. The Smart MAR algorithm provides effective outcomes at voltages of 100 and 120 kVp for wires located at 11 and 6.5 cm DP, respectively. The most effective imaging conditions for MAR is generated by the Smart MAR algorithm with a tube voltage for 100 kVp for Fe located at a DP of 11 cm. MAR can be improved by setting suitable tube voltage conditions according to the type and location of inserted metal.
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.