ArticleScientific reports2025
The potential use of scout views as an adjunct tool in CT-guided intervention.
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 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 relevance and governance of scout imaging data: a national survey of UK cross-sectional imaging radiographers.Insights into imaging · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of scout views as an adjunct tool in CT-guided intervention. Therefore, different devices used for interventional procedures were assigned to three different groups and placed onto an Alderson phantom. Different body diameters were simulated by adding PMMA/aluminum plates. Multiple scout views (ap) were acquired using a standard CT-scanner with different scan parameters. The visibility of the devices was semi-quantitatively scored by three readers. The interrater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The detectability of the 11 different interventional devices was calculated depending on tube potential, tube current-time product, and the thickness of the additional tissue equivalent. Statistical significance was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test (with Pratt modification) and the Mann-Whitney-U test, respectively. The ICC over all measurements for the three readers as well as the ICC for the three different devices groups was regarded excellent (> 0.9). The device detectability was significantly different for the different additional tissue thicknesses as well as for the three device groups. Material detectability over all readers improved with higher doses. Defining a median visibility of 3 ("good") or 4 ("very good") as a cut-off value for clinical routine use, we consider a combination of ≥ 80kVp / ≥ 60 mAs or ≥ 90 kVp / ≥ 40 mAs as reasonable scan parameters in normal and overweight patients in our CT setup. In conclusion, CT scout views have a potential use as an additional tool in CT-guided-intervention by enabling fluoroscopy-like planar imaging that may help to visualize dynamic events such as contrast injection or guidewire manipulation.
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.