ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Ultra-low-dose vs. standard-of-care-dose CT of the chest in patients with post-COVID-19 conditions-a prospective intra-patient multi-reader study.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient radiation safety in the intensive care unit.The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Variability Between Radiation-Induced Cancer Risk Models in Estimating Oncogenic Risk in Intensive Care Unit Patients.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Observational
- Evaluating Lung Changes in Long COVID: Ultra-Low-Dose vs. Standard-Dose CT Chest.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo conduct an intrapatient comparison of ultra-low-dose computed tomography (ULDCT) and standard-of-care-dose CT (SDCT) of the chest in terms of the diagnostic accuracy of ULDCT and intrareader agreement in patients with post-COVID conditions.
methodsWe prospectively included 153 consecutive patients with post-COVID-19 conditions. All participants received an SDCT and an additional ULDCT scan of the chest. SDCTs were performed with standard imaging parameters and ULDCTs at a fixed tube voltage of 100 kVp (with tin filtration), 50 ref. mAs (dose modulation active), and iterative reconstruction algorithm level 5 of 5. All CT scans were separately evaluated by four radiologists for the presence of lung changes and their consistency with post-COVID lung abnormalities. Radiation dose parameters and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ULDCT were calculated.
resultsOf the 153 included patients (mean age 47.4 ± 15.3 years; 48.4% women), 45 (29.4%) showed post-COVID lung abnormalities. In those 45 patients, the most frequently detected CT patterns were ground-glass opacities (100.0%), reticulations (43.5%), and parenchymal bands (37.0%). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of ULDCT compared to SDCT for the detection of post-COVID lung abnormalities were 92.6, 87.2, and 94.9%, respectively. The median total dose length product (DLP) of ULDCTs was less than one-tenth of the radiation dose of our SDCTs (12.6 mGy*cm [9.9; 15.5] vs. 132.1 mGy*cm [103.9; 160.2]; p < 0.001).
conclusionULDCT of the chest offers high accuracy in the detection of post-COVID lung abnormalities compared to an SDCT scan at less than one-tenth the radiation dose, corresponding to only twice the dose of a standard chest radiograph in two views. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Ultra-low-dose CT of the chest may provide a favorable, radiation-saving alternative to standard-dose CT in the long-term follow-up of the large patient cohort of post-COVID-19 patients.
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.