ArticleScientific reports2024
State-of-the-art mobile head CT scanner delivers nearly the same image quality as a conventional stationary CT scanner.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Balancing Radiation Dose and Image Quality: Protocol Optimization for Mobile Head CT in Neurointensive Care Unit Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Marine Mobile Stroke Unit: A Pilot Study on the Feasibility and Quality of Brain Imaging.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical applications of portable CT scanners.The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of mobile head CT scanners in the neurointensive care unit (NICU) saves time for patients and NICU staff and can reduce transport-related mishaps, but the reduced image quality of previous mobile scanners has prevented their widespread clinical use. This study compares the image quality of SOMATOM On.Site (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany), a state-of-the-art mobile head CT scanner, and a conventional 64-slice stationary CT scanner. The study included 40 patients who underwent head scans with both mobile and stationary scanners. Gray and white matter signal and noise were measured at predefined locations on axial slices, and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated. Artifacts below the cranial calvaria and in the posterior fossa were also measured. In addition, image quality was subjectively assessed by two radiologists in terms of corticomedullary differentiation, subcalvarial space, skull artifacts, and image noise. Quantitative measurements showed significantly higher image quality of the stationary CT scanner in terms of noise, SNR and CNR of gray and white matter. Artifacts measured in the posterior fossa were higher with the mobile CT scanner, but subcalvarial artifacts were comparable. Subjective image quality was rated similarly by two radiologists for both scanners in all domains except image noise, which was better for stationary CT scans. The image quality of the SOMATOM On.Site for brain scans is inferior to that of the conventional stationary scanner, but appears to be adequate for daily use in a clinical setting based on subjective ratings.
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.