ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
Prospective comparison of ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT coronary angiography versus conventional CT.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Clinical benefits and current challenges of photon-counting detector CT in vascular imaging.Radiology advances · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDetermine differences in quantitative stenosis severity measurements for ultra-high-resolution (UHR) photon-counting detector (PCD) coronary CT angiography (cCTA) relative to energy-integrating detector (EID) cCTA in a large patient cohort.
methodsAdult participants seen between November 2022 and March 2023 underwent a clinical dual-source EID-CT cCTA and a research dual-source PCD-CT cCTA on the same day. Percent diameter stenosis (PDS) was measured, and stenosis severity was assigned based on the PDS of the most severe lesion per patient to determine a coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) score. Agreement between EID-CT and PCD-CT for PDS and CAD-RADS was determined.
resultsA total of 112 participants were enrolled, yielding 82 subjects with at least 1 stenosis at PCD-CT (mean age, 68.0 ± 10.8 years; 69.5% [57/82] males). A total of 177 paired stenoses were quantified. The percent decrease in mean PDS from PCD-CT (24.3%) to EID-CT (29.4%) was 17.3% (median difference in PDS: -5.0%, 95% CI: -5.7% to -4.0%). The assigned CAD-RADS score changed in 31/82 subjects. In 11/31 subjects, the most severe stenosis was missed at EID-CT due to partial volume averaging of a small calcification, yet PCD clearly identified stenosis at those locations. In 20/31 subjects, the CAD-RADS score decreased at PCD-CT due to the decreased calcium blooming resulting from the improved spatial resolution.
conclusionsUHR PCD cCTA decreases quantitative measures of stenosis severity when a stenosis is identified at EID, leading to decreases in CAD-RADS assignments. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: With its improved spatial resolution, PCD-CT identifies stenoses missed on EID-CT.
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.