ReviewInternational journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology2026
A comparative study of artifact reduction techniques in metal-implanted CT scans.
Review in International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using artificial intelligence for distinguishing benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures by computed tomography: a scoping review.International journal of burns and trauma · 2026Review
- Cardiac biomarkers in acute burn injury: a systematic review of diagnostic and prognostic utility.International journal of burns and trauma · 2026Review
- Advancing cardiac tumor diagnosis: evaluatingAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance imaging for rotator cuff tears: a systematic review.International journal of burns and trauma · 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
Over the past few decades, X-ray computed tomography (CT) has been introduced as one of the main cross-sectional imaging methods in a wide range of clinical applications in diagnostic radiology, oncology, and multimodality molecular imaging. Despite the acknowledged value of this imaging method, in some cases, the quality of CT images is affected by the presence of metallic implants. The presence of metal objects such as dental fillings, hip or knee prostheses, pacemakers, war shrapnel, and spinal cages cause and exacerbate image artifacts. These types of artifacts appear in the image as black and white lines that obscure the structures and tissues surrounding the metal implant and destroy the diagnostic value of CT images. These artifacts also affect the accuracy of radiotherapy treatment planning, which relies on CT images to characterize electron density and estimate the relative stopping power of particles. Therefore, to solve this problem, over the past 4 decades, algorithms called Metal Artifact Reduction (MAR) have been proposed. The objective of this study was to assess the five MAR algorithms using simulation and clinical studies. The algorithms include linear interpolation (LI-MAR) of degraded data in sinograms, normalization metal artifact reduction (NMAR), metal removal method (MDT), metal artifact reducer for orthopedic implants (OMAR), and a method based on iteration-based algorithms (MAP). Clinical images in different body regions, with different dimensions and types of metal implants, have been studied to evaluate the performance of MAR algorithms. To quantitatively assess the quality of images modified with MAR algorithms, the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) criterion has been calculated and evaluated. The results of the algorithm evaluation showed that the NMAR algorithm was more efficient than other algorithms in reducing metal artifacts in most cases. Also, the algorithm processing time parameter demonstrated the clinical value of the NMAR algorithm.
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.