ArticleInsights into imaging2023
Comparative study of the sensitivity of ultra-high-resolution CT and high-resolution CT in the diagnosis of isolated fenestral otosclerosis.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photon-counting CT for preoperative assessment of stapes footplate fixation in otosclerosis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of cone beam computed tomography multiplanar reconstruction in the plane of stapes and the lateral semicircular canal for the diagnosis of otosclerosis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Population-based differences in otosclerosis: a dual-center study of radiological and audiological comparison in Chinese and Swiss patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Overdiagnosis in renal cancer: the hidden consequence of modern imaging.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Multimodal imaging in conductive hearing loss: Optimising CT, MRI and CTA for accurate diagnosis and management.SA journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Condylar alteration in three subtypes of temporomandibular disorder based on U-HRCT: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Stapes Image Quality with Ultra-High-Resolution CT in Comparison with Conebeam CT and High-Resolution CT in Cadaveric Heads.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Current trends in imaging for otosclerosis and the potential role of photon-counting computed tomography.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025Review
- Stapes footplate's posterior border protrudes the vestibule in healthy ears: anatomical insights from ultra-high-resolution CT.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Article
- Imaging findings of isolated congenital middle ear malformation on high-resolution computed tomography.Neuroradiology · 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
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the diagnostic sensitivity of ultra-high-resolution computed tomography (U-HRCT) and HRCT in isolated fenestral otosclerosis (IFO).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 85 patients (85 ears) diagnosed with IFO between October 2020 and November 2022. U-HRCT (0.1 mm thickness) was performed for 20 ears, HRCT (0.67 mm thickness) for 45 ears, and both for 20 ears. The images were evaluated by general radiologists and neuroradiologists who were blinded to the diagnosis and surgical information. The diagnostic sensitivity of U-HRCT and HRCT for detecting IFO was compared between the two groups.
resultsExcellent inter-observer agreement existed between the two neuroradiologists (Cohen's κ coefficient 0.806, 95% CI 0.692-0.920), with good agreement between the general radiologists (Cohen's κ coefficient 0.680, 95% CI 0.417-0.943). U-HRCT had a sensitivity of 100% (40/40 ears) for neuroradiologists and 87.5% (35/40 ears) for general radiologists, significantly higher than HRCT (89.2% [58/65 ears] for neuroradiologists; 41.5% [27/65 ears] for general radiologists) (p = 0.042, p' < 0.000). General radiologists' sensitivity with HRCT was significantly lower compared to neuroradiologists (p < 0.000), but no significant difference was observed when general radiologists switched to U-HRCT (p = 0.152). Among the 20 ears that underwent both examinations, U-HRCT detected lesions smaller than 1 mm in 5 ears, whereas HRCT's sensitivity for neuroradiologists was 40% (2/5 ears), significantly lower than for lesions larger than 1 mm (93.3%, 14/15 ears, p = 0.032).
conclusionU-HRCT exhibits higher sensitivity than HRCT in diagnosing IFO, suggesting its potential as a screening tool for suspected otosclerosis patients. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Ultra-high-resolution computed tomography has the potential to become a screening tool in patients with suspected otosclerosis and to bridge the diagnostic accuracy gap between general radiologists and neuroradiologists. KEY POINTS: • U-HRCT exhibits higher sensitivity than HRCT in the diagnosis of IFO. • U-HRCT has a significant advantage in the detection of less than 1 mm IFO. • U-HRCT has the potential to be used for screening of patients with suspected otosclerosis.
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.