Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39466387›Full record

Observational studyPediatric radiology2024

Pediatric contrast-enhanced chest CT on a photon-counting detector CT: radiation dose and image quality compared to energy-integrated detector CT.

Alexander M El-Ali, Naomi Strubel, Lynne Pinkney, Christine Xue, Bari Dane, Shailee V Lala

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Pediatric radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alexander M El-AliNew York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA. alexander.el-ali@nyulangone.org.
Naomi StrubelNew York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Lynne PinkneyNew York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Christine XueNew York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Bari DaneNew York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.
Shailee V LalaNew York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhoton counting detector (PCD) CT benefits from reduced noise compared with conventional energy-integrating detector (EID) CT, which should translate to improved image quality and reduced radiation exposure for pediatric patients undergoing chest CT with IV contrast.

objectiveTo determine the differences in radiation exposure and image quality of PCD CT and EID CT in pediatric chest CT with intravenous (IV) contrast. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this institutional review board-approved retrospective observational study, 20 scan pairs (20 PCD CT; 20 EID CT) for children who underwent chest CT with IV contrast on both a PCD CT (Siemens NAEOTOM Alpha) and an EID CT (Siemens SOMATOM Definition Edge or Force) within 12 months were reviewed independently by three pediatric radiologists for three subjective quality features on 5-point Likert scales: overall quality, small structure delineation, and motion artifact. Objective measures of image quality (image noise, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio) were assessed by a single radiologist in several locations in the chest through region of interest measurement of Hounsfield units (HU) and standard deviation. Patient-related and radiation exposure parameters were collected for each scan and summarized with median and interquartile range (IQR). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was utilized to compare groups. A P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Inter-observer agreement of subjective image quality metrics was analyzed using weighted kappa.

resultsAge (14.2 years vs 13.8 years, P= 0.15), height (P= 0.13), weight (P= 0.21), and BMI (P = 0.24) did not significantly differ between groups. There were 10 male and 3 female patients. Compared to EID CT, PCD CT showed lower radiation exposure parameters including volumetric CT dose index, 1.7 mGy (IQR 1.1-2.4 mGy) vs 3.8 mGy (IQR 2.0-4.7 mGy) (P< 0.01), and size-specific dose estimate, 2.6 mGy (IQR 1.8-3.1 mGy) vs 5.0 mGy (IQR 3.3-6.2 mGy) (P< 0.01). Objective image quality of lung parenchyma was improved on the PCD CT scanner, including image noise 119.5 HU (IQR 95.4-135.7 HU) vs 143.1 HU (IQR 125.4-169.8 HU) (P < 0.01), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) -6.1 (IQR -8.4 to -4.8) vs -4.9 (IQR -5.6 to -3.8) (P= 0.01), and contrast-to-noise ratio -63.9 (-84.1 to -57.5) vs -60.5 (-76.3 to -52.5) (P = 0.01). Motion artifact was improved on the PCD CT scanner (P< 0.01). No significant differences in overall image quality or small structure delineation were identified (P= 0.06 and P= 0.31).

conclusionPCD CT pediatric chest CT had significantly reduced radiation exposure, improved image quality, and reduced motion artifact compared with EID CT.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaRadiation DosageRadiography, ThoracicTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMalePhotonsRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaChildContrast mediaLungPhotonsRadiation dosageTomographyX-ray computed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.