ArticleJournal of neuroendovascular therapy2024
A Comparison and Evaluation of Two Commercially Available Metal Artifact Reduction Applications.
Article in Journal of neuroendovascular therapy, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The angiography systems A (A) and B (B), both incorporated at our hospital, are equipped with metal artifact reduction (MAR) applications. In clinical practice, it is crucial to understand the characteristics of MAR in both systems given that endovascular treatments are occasionally administered with both. In this study, we compared the artifact reduction effects of MAR on equipment A and B and clarified the differences between the two systems. Methods: An artifact evaluation phantom was created using a cylindrical water phantom and an iodine contrast medium. The phantom was imaged, MAR processing was performed on the obtained images, and an isotropic quantitative evaluation of artifacts was performed by extreme value statistical analysis using the Gumbel distribution. Results: The MAR reduction effects were approximately 45% and 40% for equipment A and B at concentrations of 8300 and 6000, respectively. The MAR reduction effect in both devices exhibited different trends depending on the concentration. Conclusion: In clinical procedures that make use of absorbents in medium concentrations of approximately 3000-5000, such as n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate and Onyx, it is necessary to understand the MAR characteristics of both devices and consider the use of alternative devices as an option.
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.