ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2023
Low pitch significantly reduces helical artifacts in abdominal CT.
Article in European journal of radiology, 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.
- AI-Driven Advances in Low-Dose Imaging and Enhancement-A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHigh helical pitch scanning minimizes scan times in CT imaging, and thus also minimizes motion artifact and mis-synchronization with contrast bolus. However, high pitch produces helical artifacts that may adversely affect diagnostic image quality. This study aims to determine the severity and incidence of helical artifacts in abdominal CT imaging and their relation to the helical pitch scan parameter.
methodsTo obtain a dataset with varying pitch values, we used CT exam data both internal and external to our center. A cohort of 59 consecutive adult patients receiving an abdomen CT examination at our center with an accompanying prior examination from an external center was selected for retrospective review. Two expert observers performed a blinded rating of helical artifact in each examination using a five-point Likert scale. The incidence of artifacts with respect to the helical pitch was assessed. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression (GLMER) model, with study arm (Internal or External to our center) and helical pitch as the fixed-effect predictor variables, was fit to the artifact ratings, and significance of the predictor variables was tested.
resultsFor a pitch of <0.75, the proportion of exams with mild or worse helical artifacts (Likert scores of 1-3) was <1%. The proportion increased to 16% for exams with pitch between 0.75 and 1.2, and further increased to 78% for exams with a pitch greater than 1.2. Pitch was significantly associated with helical artifact in the GLMER model (p = 2.8 × 10
conclusionThe incidence and severity of helical artifact increased with helical pitch. This difference persisted even after accounting for the potential confounding factor of the center where the study was performed.
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.