ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Follow-up recommendation rates with abdominopelvic photon counting CT: comparison with conventional dual-energy and single-energy CT.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo retrospectively compare the follow-up imaging recommendation rate in patients who underwent an abdominopelvic PCCT, dual-source dual-energy CT (DECT), or single-energy CT (SECT).
methodsA retrospective PACS search identified all outpatient contrast-enhanced abdominal PCCT, DECT, and SECT from 4/11/2022-10/14/2024. PCCT and DECT examinations without virtual noncontrast and iodine map images in PACS were excluded. All radiology reports were reviewed for follow-up imaging recommendations and reason. Follow-up imaging recommendation rates were compared across all three scanner groups and pairwise between each scanner type. The projected cost savings related to avoided follow-up recommendations with PCCT compared with SECT was calculated using the average Medicare reimbursement for each potential follow-up examination.
results16,065 examinations (median(IQR) age: 66(54-76) years; 8,433 females (52%)) including 8,246 PCCT, 3,988 DECT, and 3,831 SECT were included. Follow-up imaging was recommended in 8.1% (671/8,246) of PCCT, 8.7% (347/3,988) of DECT, and 13% (517/3,831) of SECT (p < .001). MRI was recommended in 5.2% (430/8,246) of PCCT, 4.2% (166/3,988) of DECT, and 6.4% (245/3,831) of SECT (p < .001). CT was recommended in 2.0% (168/8,246) of PCCT, 3.9% (155/3,988) of DECT, and 5% (193/3,831) of SECT (p < .001). Ultrasound was recommended in 1.4% (114/8,246) of PCCT, 1.2% (48/3,988) of DECT, and 2.7% (104/3,831) of SECT (p < .001). The total estimated cost savings of avoided subsequent imaging examinations with abdominopelvic PCCT compared with SECT was $32,904 for MRI, $71,085 for CT, and $10,888 for ultrasound, with $114,877 overall projected savings.
conclusionThere were significantly reduced follow-up imaging recommendations after abdominopelvic PCCT and DECT than SECT, with projected cost savings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41379143What 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.