ArticleSkeletal radiology2024
Superior metal artifact reduction of tin-filtered low-dose CT in imaging of lumbar spinal instrumentation compared to conventional computed tomography.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A large, paired dataset of robotic and handheld lumbar spine ultrasound with ground-truth CT benchmarking.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Metal artifact reduction and contrast agent performance as a function of source spectral shape.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Implementing tin-prefiltration in routine clinical CT scans of the lower extremity: impact on radiation dose.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Bone Evaluation and Metal Artifact between Photon-Counting CT and Five Energy-Integrating-Detector CT under Standardized Conditions Using Cadaveric Forearms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the image quality of low-dose CT (LD-CT) with tin filtration of the lumbar spine after metal implants to standard clinical CT, and to evaluate the potential for metal artifact and dose reduction. MATERIALS AND
methodsCT protocols were optimized in a cadaver torso. Seventy-four prospectively included patients with metallic lumbar implants were scanned with both standard CT (120 kV) and tin-filtered LD-CT (Sn140kV). CT dose parameters and qualitative measures (1 = worst,4 = best) were compared. Quantitative measures included noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and the width and attenuation of the most prominent hypodense metal artifact. Standard CT and LD-CT were assessed for imaging findings.
resultsTin-filtered LD-CT was performed with 60% dose saving compared to standard CT (median effective dose 3.22 mSv (quartile 1-3: 2.73-3.49 mSv) versus 8.02 mSv (6.42-9.27 mSv; p < .001). Image quality of CT and tin-filtered low-dose CT was good with excellent depiction of anatomy, while image noise was lower for CT and artifacts were weaker for tin-filtered LD-CT. Quantitative measures also revealed increased noise for tin-filtered low-dose CT (41.5HU), lower SNR (2) and CNR (0.6) compared to CT (32HU,3.55,1.03, respectively) (all p < .001). However, tin-filtered LD-CT performed superior regarding the width and attenuation of hypodense metal artifacts (2.9 mm and -767.5HU for LD-CT vs. 4.1 mm and -937HU for CT; all p < .001). No difference between methods was observed in detection of imaging findings.
conclusionTin-filtered LD-CT with 60% dose saving performs comparable to standard CT in detection of pathology and surgery related complications after lumbar spinal instrumentation, and shows superior metal artifact reduction.
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.