ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Improving image quality consistency and diagnostic accuracy in lower extremity CT angiography using a split-bolus contrast injection protocol.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical value of using a split-bolus contrast injection protocol in improving image quality consistency and diagnostic accuracy in lower extremity CT angiography (CTA).
methodsFifty (mean age, 66 ± 12 years) and 39 (mean age, 66 ± 11 years) patients underwent CTA in the lower extremity arteries using split-bolus and fixed-bolus injection schemes, respectively. The objective and subjective image quality of the 2 groups were compared and the diagnostic efficacy for the degree of vessel stenosis was compared using digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard. A P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsIn comparison with the fixed-bolus scheme, the split-bolus scheme greatly improved the consistency of image quality of the low extremities by significantly increasing the arterial enhancement (337.87 ± 64.67HU vs. 254.74 ± 71.58HU, P < .001), signal-to-noise ratio (22.58 ± 11.64 vs. 7.14 ± 1.98, P < .001), and contrast-to-noise ratio (37.21 ± 10.46 vs. 31.10 ± 15.40, P = .041) in the infrapopliteal segment. The subjective image quality was better (P < .001) and the diagnostic accuracy was higher in the split-bolus group than in the fixed-bolus group (96.00% vs. 91.67%, P < .05, for diagnosing >50% stenosis, and 97.00% vs. 89.10%, P < .05, for diagnosing occlusion) for the infrapopliteal segment arteries.
conclusionsCompared with the fixed-bolus injection scheme, the split-bolus injection scheme improves the image quality consistency and diagnostic accuracy especially for the infrapopliteal segment arteries in lower extremity CTA. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (1) The split-bolus injection scheme of CTA of the lower extremity arteries improves the overall image quality, uniformity of contrast enhancement. (2) Compared with the fixed-bolus injection scheme, the split-bolus injection scheme especially improves the infrapopliteal segment arteries image quality and diagnostic efficacy.
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.