Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39865183›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025

Improved display and detection of small renal stones using photon-counting detector CT compared to conventional energy-integrating detector CT.

Andrea Esquivel, Theodora Potretzke, Andrea Ferrero, Akitoshi Inoue, Safa Hoodeshenans, Achille Mileto, Timothy Winfree, Mariana Yalon, Ashish Khandelwal, Kishore Rajendran and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Andrea EsquivelMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Theodora PotretzkeMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Andrea FerreroMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Akitoshi InoueMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Safa HoodeshenansMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Achille MiletoUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Timothy WinfreeMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mariana YalonMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ashish KhandelwalMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Kishore RajendranMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jamison E ThorneMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Yong S LeeMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Aaron PotretzkeMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Shuai LengMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Cynthia H McColloughMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Joel G FletcherMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Fletcher.Joel@mayo.edu.

Funding

Quantitative, non-invasive characterization of urinary stone composition and fragility using multi-energy CT and machine learning techniquesR01EB028591 · NIBIB · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI MCCOLLOUGH, CYNTHIA H · 2019 to 2022
$1.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB028591
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare same-day photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) to conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) for detection of small renal stones (≤ 3 mm).

methodsPatients undergoing clinical dual-energy EID-CT for known or suspected stone disease underwent same-day research PCD-CT. Patients with greater than 10 stones and no visible stones under 3 mm were excluded. Three radiologists selected the optimal reconstruction configuration for each CT modality and created the reference standard for renal stone presence. Two other radiologists, blinded to imaging modality, independently reviewed anonymized images to detect renal stones, rating confidence in potential stones using a Likert scale (1 = Definitely present, 2 = Probably present, 3 = Questionably present, 4 = Not seen). Sensitivity and false positive detections for PCD and EID-CT were calculated.

resultsTwenty-one patients underwent clinical EID-CT followed by same-day PCD-CT, with the reference standard identifying 121 renal stones (mean size 2.8 ± 2.6 mm). 0.4-mm PCD-CT images were more likely to display a stone as definitely present compared to 1- or 2-mm EID-CT images (p < 0.0001). Overall sensitivity for detection of all stones was greater at PCD-CT (0.75 vs. 0.55, p < 0.05). Pooled sensitivity of stones

conclusionSensitivity for renal stones was significantly higher using high spatial resolution PCD-CT vs. EID-CT, especially for stones 3 mm or less in size, which may be important for at-risk patient populations. Prospective evaluation in larger patient populations that will benefit from detection of small stones is warranted.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotonsRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedSensitivity and SpecificityComputed tomographyHigh spatial resolutionKidney calculiKidney calculi classificationMulti-energyNephrolithiasisPhoton-counting detector

Identifiers

PMID39865183
PMCPMC12266968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.