Observational studyEmergency radiology2026
Photon-counting CT versus energy-integrating CT of the chest in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective observational study of image quality and radiation exposure.
Observational study in Emergency radiology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChest CT is central to the diagnosis and monitoring of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) may improve image quality and enable radiation dose optimization compared with Energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT). However, evidence in critically ill ARDS patients undergoing contrast-enhanced chest imaging is limited. The purpose of this study was to intraindividually compare image quality and radiation exposure between PCD-CT and EID-CT in ARDS patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with ARDS who underwent both contrast-enhanced chest PCD-CT and EID-CT between April 2023 and May 2025. CT dose index volume (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), effective and organ doses were extracted from dose monitoring software. Subjective image quality and diagnostic acceptability were rated independently by two radiologists using a Likert scale; inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's κ. Objective image quality was assessed using signal-to-noise ratios in representative anatomical regions. Intraindividual comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsAmong 531 ARDS patients, 80 (15.1%) underwent chest PCD-CT, including 59 (73.8%) contrast-enhanced examinations (median age: 51.7 years (IQR: 41.6-59.5); 62.7% male). Intraindividual imaging was performed in 32 patients (54.2%). PCD-CT demonstrated significantly higher subjective and objective image quality than EID-CT (p < 0.005), with moderate inter-reader agreement. Median CTDIvol and DLP were not significantly different between PCD-CT (8.2 mGy; 435 mGycm) and EID-CT (7.7 mGy; 297 mGycm).
conclusionIn contrast-enhanced chest CT of ARDS patients, PCD-CT provides superior image quality without a significant difference in radiation dose, potentially facilitating more precise diagnostic assessment in this critically ill population.
trial registrationDRKS-ID: DRKS00037916, 15 September 2025, retrospectively registered.
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.