Trial reportJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Supported bridge position in one-stop coronary and craniocervical CT angiography: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Supported bridge position in one-stop coronary and craniocervical CT angiography: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Trial
- Two Deep Image Reconstructions for a 320-Row CT: Review of Clinical ApplicationsCurrent medical imaging · 2026Review
- Comparison of "one-stop" coronary and head-and-neck computed tomography angiography with different scan sequences using a wide-detector system: heart-to-cranialQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe routine patient arm position differs between coronary CT angiography (CTA) and craniocervical CTA protocols. To investigate the clinical feasibility of supported bridge position (SBP) in combined coronary and craniocervical CTA.
methodsProspective enrollment included patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or craniocervical artery disease (CCAD) from February 2022 to November 2022. Patients were divided into three groups: coronary or craniocervical CTA according to CAD or CCAD using standard position (group 1), combined CTA with naturally arm-down position (group 2) and SBP (group 3). Statistical analysis of objective image quality, such as noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), subjective image quality, patient position and radiation dose was performed among the three groups.
resultsTwo hundred and one patients (median age, 67 years; 138 men) were included. In terms of CNR for cardiac segment, group 1 and group 3 had no statistical difference, both significantly higher than group 2 (group 1, 12.56 ± 2.05; group 2, 10.4 ± 2.43; group 3, 11.94 ± 2.22; P < 0.05). Subjective image evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences among the three groups of coronary arteries (P > 0.05). Additionally, the lateral project value of scout images at the heart level indicated a significant difference (119.48 ± 12.19, 182.34 ± 25.09, and 140.58 ± 19.68 of patients, for group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively, P < 0.05). No statistical differences were observed in
conclusionsIn comparison with a naturally arm-down position, SBP, which aligns the humerus bones with the spinal column, can provide diagnostic image quality at routine dose level of standard position CTA.
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.