Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41405692›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Replacing true non-contrast imaging with DECT in GI bleeding demonstrates non-inferior diagnostic performance, reading time and confidence.

Moritz Oberparleiter, Hanns-Christian Breit, Jan Vosshenrich, Alina C Seifert, Paul Hehenkamp, Sonaz Malekzadeh, Adrian Kobe, Daniel T Boll, Christoph J Zech, Markus M Obmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Moritz OberparleiterDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Hanns-Christian BreitDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jan VosshenrichDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Alina C SeifertDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Paul HehenkampDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sonaz MalekzadehDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Adrian KobeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Daniel T BollDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Christoph J ZechDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Markus M ObmannDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. markus.obmann@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6586-0034

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether a dual-energy CT (DECT) protocol-including arterial and portal-venous phases, virtual non-contrast (VNC) images, and iodine maps-provides non-inferior diagnostic performance to a conventional triphasic CT protocol for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective single-center diagnostic accuracy study, we included all patients who underwent triphasic abdominal CT for GI bleeding between September 2015 and June 2024. For each case, conventional and DECT datasets were generated. Three fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists and two residents independently assessed all cases for active GI bleeding. A consensus review served as the reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity were compared using the Wald method for paired confidence intervals (non-inferiority margin 3%). Diagnostic confidence and reading time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Fleiss' kappa.

resultsOne hundred patients (mean age, 70 ± 14 years; 34 women) were evaluated, including 50 with GI bleeding (21 upper, 29 lower) and 50 controls. With conventional triphasic CT, sensitivity and specificity were 91.6% and 94.4%, respectively. With DECT, they were 94.4% and 96.0%, demonstrating non-inferiority within a 3% margin. Diagnostic confidence increased from 4 (IQR, 4-5) to 5 (IQR, 4-5) (p < 0.01). Mean reading time decreased from 96.3 s to 93.6 s (p < 0.01), also meeting non-inferiority. Inter-reader agreement was almost perfect (κ = 0.82). Total DLP was reduced by 20% when true non-contrast images were omitted.

conclusionDECT-derived VNC and iodine maps provide non-inferior diagnostic performance to conventional CT for GI bleeding and can replace true non-contrast imaging. KEY POINTS: Question Eliminating true non-contrast scans from CT protocols for gastrointestinal bleeding could reduce radiation dose, but its impact on diagnostic performance remains unclear. Findings Dual-energy CT with virtual non-contrast images and iodine maps achieved non-inferior sensitivity, specificity, reading time, and diagnostic confidence compared to conventional triphasic CT. Clinical relevance Dual-energy CT with virtual non-contrast images and iodine maps can reliably replace true non-contrast scans in GI bleeding protocols, maintaining diagnostic performance while reducing radiation exposure-offering a safer and more efficient diagnostic alternative for patients.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal HemorrhageRadiography, Dual-Energy Scanned ProjectionTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityGastrointestinal hemorrhageIntestinesRadiation dosageTomography (X-ray computed)

Identifiers

PMID41405692
PMCPMC13086890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.