ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Dual-energy based myocardial extracellular volume quantification with photon-counting detector and energy-integrating detector dual-source computed tomography: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- CT-derived myocardial extracellular volume: current evidence, clinical utility, and the emerging role of photon-counting CT-a systematic review.European radiology experimental · 2026Pooled it
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
objectivesThis study compared three-dimensional myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) quantification among single-phase and dual-phase photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) and dual-phase energy-integrating detector computed tomography (EID-CT), using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging as the reference. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 80 patients who underwent both CMR and cardiac CT (40 patients underwent PCD-CT and 40 underwent EID-CT). Pearson correlation coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate the correlation and reliability of CT-ECV with CMR-ECV. Subgroup analysis was performed based on heart rate.
resultsThe single-phase and dual-phase ECV measurements on PCD-CT showed excellent correlation and consistency with CMR (correlation coefficient: single-phase, 0.84; dual-phase, 0.91; ICC: single-phase, 0.90; dual-phase, 0.94). Both methods significantly outperformed EID-CT (correlation coefficient: 0.62; ICC: 0.76; all p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the two PCD-CT methods (all p > 0.05). PCD-CT demonstrated high consistency across both HR subgroups (ICC: HR ≤ 60 bpm: 0.89 for single-phase, 0.85 for dual-phase; HR > 60 bpm: 0.87 for single-phase, 0.88 for dual-phase), whereas EID-CT exhibited reduced consistency in patients with HR > 60 bpm (ICC: HR ≤ 60 bpm: 0.78; HR > 60 bpm: 0.60).
conclusionCompared with EID-CT, PCD-CT showed superior correlation and reliability for myocardial ECV quantification, particularly in patients with elevated heart rates. The single-phase PCD-CT method demonstrated performance equivalent to the dual-phase approach. KEY POINTS: Question How does myocardial ECV quantification using PCD-CT compare with conventional EID-CT? Findings Single-phase and dual-phase methods on PCD-CT significantly outperform EID-CT in myocardial ECV quantification. Clinical relevance These findings suggest PCD-CT significantly outperforms EID-CT as a promising alternative to CMR for myocardial ECV assessment, particularly under challenging conditions such as higher heart rates, offering improved reliability for clinical myocardial tissue characterization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40903622What 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.