ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2024
Coronary CT angiography: First comparison of model-based and hybrid iterative reconstruction with the reference standard invasive catheter angiography for CAD-RADS reporting.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare CCTA images generated using HIR and IMR algorithm with the reference standard ICA, and to determine to what extend further improvements of IMR over HIR can be expected. Methods: This retrospective study included 60 patients with low to intermediate CAD risk, who underwent coronary CTA (with HIR and IMR) and ICA. ICA was used as reference standard. Two independent and blinded readers evaluated 2226 segments, classifying stenosis with CAD-RADS (significant stenosis ≥3). Image quality was assessed with a 5-point scale, SNR in the ascending aorta, and FWHM of proximal LCA calibers. The impact of image noise, radiation dose, and BMI on diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using ROC curves and Fisher's Exact Test. Quantitative plaque analysis was performed on 28 plaques. Results: IMR showed higher image quality than HIR (IMR 4.4, HIR 3.97, p<0.001) with better SNR (21.4 vs. 13.28, p<0.001) and FWHM (4.44 vs. 4.55, p=0.003). IMR had better diagnostic accuracy (ROC AUC 0.967 vs. 0.948, p=0.16, performed better at higher radiation doses (p=0.02) and showed a larger minimum lumen area (p=0.022 and p=0.046). Conclusion: IMR offers significantly superior image quality of CCTA, more precise measurements, and a stronger positive correlation with ICA. The overall diagnostic accuracy may be superior with IMR, although the differences were not statistically significant. However, in patients who are exposed to higher radiation doses during CCTA due to their constitution, IMR enables significantly better diagnostic accuracy than HIR thus providing a specific benefit for obese patients.
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.