SynthesisLa Radiologia medica2026
Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT in distinguishing intracerebral hemorrhage from contrast staining: a systematic review and meta-analysis with radiation dose assessment.
Synthesis in La Radiologia medica, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) in distinguishing intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) from contrast staining after procedures and to assess the associated radiation dose in comparison with conventional CT.
methodsA systematic search was conducted up to December 2024. Eligible studies included those applying DECT for cerebrovascular conditions with retrievable technical and diagnostic performance data. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and radiation dose parameters were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 68 studies, including 5530 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 34/68 (50%) focused on lesion detection, 18/68 (26%) on technical aspects, and 16/68 (24%) on prediction. A meta-analysis of 10 studies demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 96.1% (95% CI 83.8%-99.1%) and specificity of 97.8% (95% CI 91.4%-99.5%) for differentiating ICH from contrast staining. Additionally, a radiation dose meta-analysis of 13 studies provided pooled estimates of computed tomography dose index volume (CTDIvol) at 28.83 mGy (95% CI 20.60-37.07 mGy) and dose-length product (DLP) at 517.66 mGy × cm (95% CI 400.19-635.13 mGy × cm), comparable to conventional single-energy CT.
conclusionDECT demonstrates excellent diagnostic accuracy in differentiating ICH from contrast staining, with radiation exposure comparable to conventional CT. The large variability in voltage and doses among different protocols reflects the relative immaturity of DECT and the need for multicentric harmonization and standardization. Given its high diagnostic accuracy and comparable radiation exposure to single-energy CT, where technically available, DECT should always be considered in the specific scenario of differentiating ICH from contrast staining. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: DECT provides high diagnostic accuracy without increasing radiation exposure, enabling confident post-treatment differentiation between hemorrhage and contrast staining to guide timely therapeutic decisions.
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.