ArticleMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy2023
A Study of CT-derived Radiation Dose Calculation in Lung Q-SPECT/CT Imaging.
Article in Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the amount of effective dose (ED) due to the computed tomography (CT) component of lung perfusion-single-photon emission computed tomography (Q-SPECT)/CT. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, imaging data were collected from the clinic database for the period 2016-2022. The 327 patients identified were aged between 20 and 94 years. Tube voltage, tube current, pitch, gantry rotation time, volume CT dose index, and dose-length product (DLP) were recorded. The DLP was then converted to an ED using the conversion factors. The comparison of the ED between two groups was performed using the Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test. Results: ED (mean ± standard deviation, mSv) was 1.20±0.70 for the pulmonary embolism (PE) (-) and 1.54±1.04 for the PE (+) cases (p<0.05). It was observed that there was a 28% increase in the ED for the PE (+) cases. In addition, each of the PE (-) and PE (+) cases was divided into two groups according to the use of the computed tomography dose reduction (CTDR): without CTDR protocol group (non-CTDR) and with CTDR protocol group (CTDR). For those groups, ED were obtained as 0.87±0.72 and 1.55±0.47 for PE (-) cases (p<0.05); 1.56±1.17 and 1.49±0.54 for PE (+) cases (p>0.05) correspondingly. For a deeper understanding, ED was calculated for all three groups formed with different tube voltage values applied for the non-CTDR and CTDR groups.There was a 42% decrease in the ED for group 1 PE (+) compared to group 2 PE (+) (1.21±0.28, 2.07±0.91, p<0.05) and there was a 41% decrease in the ED for group 1 PE (-) compared to group 2 PE (-) cases (1.17±0.32, 1.97±0.65, p<0.05). Conclusion: It could be concluded that the effective DR protocol is the non-CTDR protocol for the PE (-) cases and the application of the tube voltage at the level of 100 kVp for the PE (+) cases.
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.