ArticleBritish journal of biomedical science2024
Evaluating Lung Changes in Long COVID: Ultra-Low-Dose vs. Standard-Dose CT Chest.
Article in British journal of biomedical science, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Frequent chest CTs within a short period during follow-up of long COVID patients may increase the risk of radiation-related health effects in the exposed individuals. We aimed to assess the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) chest compared to standard-dose CT (SDCT) in detecting lung abnormalities associated with long COVID. Methods: In this prospective study, 100 long COVID patients with respiratory dysfunction underwent SDCT and ULDCT chest that were compared in terms of objective (signal-to-noise ratio, SNR) and subjective image quality (image graininess, sharpness, artifacts, and diagnostic accuracy along with the European guidelines on image quality criteria for CT chest), detection of imaging patterns of long COVID, CT severity score, and effective radiation dose. Additionally, the diagnostic performance of ULDCT was compared among obese (BMI≥30 kg/m Results: The mean age of study participants was 53 ± 12.9 years, and 68% were male. The mean SNR was 31.4 ± 5.5 and 11.3 ± 4.6 for SDCT and ULDCT respectively (p< 0.0001). Common findings seen on SDCT included ground-glass opacities (GGOs, 77%), septal thickening/reticulations (67%), atelectatic/parenchymal bands (63%) and nodules (26%). ULDCT provided sharp images, with no/minimal graininess, and high diagnostic confidence in 81%, 82% and 80% of the cases respectively. The sensitivity of ULDCT for various patterns of long COVID was 72.7% (GGOs), 71.6% (interlobular septal thickening/reticulations), 100% (consolidation), 81% (atelectatic/parenchymal bands) and 76.9% (nodules). ULDCT scans in non-obese subjects exhibited a significantly higher sensitivity (88% vs. 60.3%, p < 0.0001) and diagnostic accuracy (97.7% vs. 84.9%, p < 0.0001) compared to obese subjects. ULDCT showed very strong correlation with SDCT in terms of CT severity score (r = 0.996, p < 0.0001). The mean effective radiation dose with ULDCT was 0.25 ± 0.02 mSv with net radiation dose reduction of 94.8% ± 1.7% (p < 0.0001) when compared to SDCT (5.5 ± 1.96 mSv). Conclusion: ULDCT scans achieved comparable diagnostic accuracy to SDCT for detecting long COVID lung abnormalities in non-obese patients, while significantly reducing radiation exposure.
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.