ArticleScientific reports2025
Diagnostic accuracy of dual energy computed tomography for suspected pyogenic spondylodiscitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantification of intervertebral disc degeneration using dual-energy computed tomography collagen maps: a comparative study with MRI Pfirrmann grading.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Infectious Spondylodiscitis of Bacterial Causes in Adults: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Diagnostic and Treatment Challenges.Microorganisms · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the diagnostic method of choice, we here analyze the diagnostic potential of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in differentiating abnormal discs from normal-appearing discs and in differentiating between infectious and degenerative conditions. Twenty-eight patients with suspected spondylodiscitis who underwent DECT and MRI of the spine were retrospectively included. Eighteen patients were diagnosed with spondylodiscitis and ten patients with degenerative disc disease. A combined clinical reference standard for the diagnosis was used. One abnormal disc and one normal-appearing disc per patient were included. Three blinded readers analyzed CT, DECT cMaps and MRI images. Quantitative analysis was performed in standardized regions of interest placed in each of the two discs included. Mixed-model analysis was used to identify correlations between CT density alterations and spondylodiscitis or degenerative disc disease. Diagnostic accuracy for differentiating abnormal discs and normal-appearing discs: 69.7% (95% CI, 56.0 to 81.2) for CT, 76.8% (95% CI, 63.6 to 87.0) for CT + DECT, 58.9% (95% CI, 45.0 to 71.9) for MRI; for differentiating spondylodiscitis and degenerative disc disease: 64.3% (95% CI, 44.1 to 81.4) for CT, 60.7% (95% CI, 40.6 to 78.5) for CT + DECT, 53.6% (95% CI, 33.9 to 72.5) for MRI. Mixed-model analysis revealed that normal-appearing discs had higher average density than abnormal discs in DECT (mean difference = 47.0 HU (95% CI, 32.8 to 61.3), p = < 0.001). In summary, both qualitative and quantitative DECT can distinguish normal-appearing discs from abnormal discs. Spondylodiscitis and degenerative disc disease were not distinguished accurately by DECT in this study.
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.