ArticleScientific reports2024
Tube current reduction and iterative image reconstruction for computed tomography myelography.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of a low-dose (LD) protocol using tube current reduction on image quality, the confidence for intervention planning and guidance, and diagnostic yield for computed tomography (CT) myelography. We retrospectively analyzed 68 patients who underwent CT myelography, with 34 investigations performed with a standard-dose (SD) and 34 investigations performed with a LD protocol (using tube current reduction). The different scans were matched considering variables such as sex, age, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using Likert scales. Image noise was measured using attenuation values of paraspinal muscle tissue. Images were reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (post-myelography diagnostic scans) or hybrid reconstruction (planning, periprocedural, and diagnostic scans). Image quality, overall artifacts, image contrast, and confidence for planning or intervention guidance were rated good to perfect for both SD and LD scans according to evaluations of both readers. Inter-reader agreement was good to very good for the images from intervention planning (κ ≥ 0.80) as well as for intervention guidance (κ ≥ 0.77), as well as for diagnostic scans (κ ≥ 0.85). Image noise was similar between SD and LD scans performed for planning of the interventional procedures (model-based iterative reconstruction: SD 45.37 ± 7.29 HU vs. LD 45.17 ± 9.12 HU; hybrid reconstruction: SD 46.05 ± 7.43 HU vs. LD 45.05 ± 8.69 HU; p > 0.05). The volume-weighted CT dose index (CTDI
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.