ArticlePediatric radiology2025
Comparative radiation dose analysis in pediatric high-pitch cardiac CTA using photon-counting versus energy-integrating detector CT.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiation dose and objective image quality of photon-counting detector computed tomography in pediatric imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Reply to comment of clarifying radiation-dose trade-offs in photon-counting detector pediatric cardiac computed tomographic angiography: protocol standardization as the missing variable.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Clarifying radiation-dose trade-offs in photon-counting detector pediatric cardiac computed tomographic angiography: protocol standardization as the missing variable.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have shown improved image quality in pediatric cardiac imaging using photon-counting detector CT (PCDCT). However, these studies did not evaluate image quality and radiation dose when utilizing the full spectral capabilities of PCDCT scanners. The full spectral capability of PCDCT scanners allows the generation of the entire array of mono-energetic reconstructions, virtual non-contrast (VNC) images, and iodine maps, which have potential advantages in evaluating complex congenital heart disease. For example, following complex congenital cardiac repairs, when distinguishing intraluminal or soft tissue calcifications from contrast, or when evaluating intrastent thrombus.
objectiveTo compare image quality and radiation dose between high-pitch cardiac CT using full spectral PCDCT and dual-source energy-integrating detector CT (EIDCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective, IRB-approved study analyzed high-pitch cardiac CTs from January 2021 to October 2023 in pediatric patients (< 18 years). Patients were scanned using either PCDCT with full spectral technique ("QuantumPlus") or EIDCT. Radiation doses were measured by CT dose index (CTDI) and dose-length product (DLP). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were also calculated, and image quality was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analysis included unpaired T-test, Shapiro-Wilk test, Mann-Whitney test, and kappa coefficients for interrater agreement.
resultsTwo hundred patients were evaluated, with 100 scanned on PCDCT and 100 on EIDCT. In the PCDCT scanner, 47/100 (47%) were male and 53/100 were female (53%) (P = 0.01). In the EIDCT scanner, 65/100 were male (65%) and 35/100 (35%) were female (P = 0.01). In the PCDCT scanner, 68/100 (68%) (P = 0.05) were ≤ 12 months, and 32/100 (32%) (P = 0.05) were > 12 months. In the EIDCT, 80/100 (80%) (P = 0.05) were ≤ 12 months, and 20/100 (20%) (P = 0.05) were > 12 months. In patients ≤ 12 months, the CNR were 31.61 in the PCDCT group and 32.14 in the EIDCT group (P = 0.39). For those > 12 months, CNR were 30.07 for PCDCT and 25.27 for EIDCT (P = 0.17). In patients ≤ 12 months, SNR was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) in PCDCT, compared to EIDCT for the teres minor muscles, while in patients > 12 months, SNR was not significantly lower (P = 0.89); SNR was similar between scanners. Radiation doses were significantly higher for PCDCT across both age groups (P < 0.0001).
conclusionHigh-pitch cardiac CT with PCDCT using spectral processing resulted in higher radiation doses and lower SNR in infants compared to EIDCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40911056What 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.