Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37382617›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

First experience of evaluation of the impact of high-matrix size reconstruction in image quality in arterial CT runoff studies of the lower extremities.

Fides R Schwartz, James S Ronald, Kevin R Kalisz, Wanyi Fu, Juan Carlos Ramirez-Giraldo, Lynne M Hurwitz Koweek, Susan Churchill, Kevin W Southerland, Daniele Marin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fides R SchwartzDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Health System, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27110, USA. fides.schwartz@duke.edu.
James S RonaldDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Health System, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27110, USA.
Kevin R KaliszDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Health System, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27110, USA.
Wanyi FuDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Health System, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27110, USA.
Juan Carlos Ramirez-GiraldoSiemens Healthineers, Malvern, PA, USA.
Lynne M Hurwitz KoweekDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Health System, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27110, USA.
Susan ChurchillDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Health System, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27110, USA.
Kevin W SoutherlandDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA.
Daniele MarinDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Health System, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27110, USA.
Duke University Health System · USSiemens Healthcare (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether image reconstruction with a higher matrix size improves image quality for lower extremity CTA studies.

methodsRaw data from 50 consecutive lower extremity CTA studies acquired on two MDCT scanners (SOMATOM Flash, Force) in patients evaluated for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were retrospectively collected and reconstructed with standard (512 × 512) and higher resolution (768 × 768, 1024 × 1024) matrix sizes. Five blinded readers reviewed representative transverse images in randomized order (150 total). Readers graded image quality (0 (worst)-100 (best)) for vascular wall definition, image noise, and confidence in stenosis grading. Ten patients' stenosis scores on CTA images were compared to invasive angiography. Scores were compared using mixed effects linear regression.

resultsReconstructions with 1024 × 1024 matrix were ranked significantly better for wall definition (mean score 72, 95% CI = 61-84), noise (74, CI = 59-88), and confidence (70, CI = 59-80) compared to 512 × 512 (wall = 65, CI = 53 × 77; noise = 67, CI = 52 × 81; confidence = 62, CI = 52 × 73; p = 0.003, p = 0.01, and p = 0.004, respectively). Compared to 512 × 512, the 768 × 768 and 1024 × 1024 matrix improved image quality in the tibial arteries (wall = 51 vs 57 and 59, p < 0.05; noise = 65 vs 69 and 68, p = 0.06; confidence = 48 vs 57 and 55, p < 0.05) to a greater degree than the femoral-popliteal arteries (wall = 78 vs 78 and 85; noise = 81 vs 81 and 84; confidence = 76 vs 77 and 81, all p > 0.05), though for the 10 patients with angiography accuracy of stenosis grading was not significantly different. Inter-reader agreement was moderate (rho = 0.5).

conclusionHigher matrix reconstructions of 768 × 768 and 1024 × 1024 improved image quality and may enable more confident assessment of PAD. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Higher matrix reconstructions of the vessels in the lower extremities can improve perceived image quality and reader confidence in making diagnostic decisions based on CTA imaging. KEY POINTS: • Higher than standard matrix sizes improve perceived image quality of the arteries in the lower extremities. • Image noise is not perceived as increased even at a matrix size of 1024 × 1024 pixels. • Gains from higher matrix reconstructions are higher in smaller, more distal tibial and peroneal vessels than in femoropopliteal vessels.

Indexed as

ArteriesPeripheral Arterial DiseaseComputed Tomography AngiographyConstriction, PathologicHumansLower ExtremityRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesComputed tomography angiographyImaging, three-dimensionalPeripheral arterial diseasePeripheral vascular diseasesTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID37382617
OpenAlexW4382502468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.