ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Photon-counting detector CT for CT pulmonary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in European 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically evaluate the radiation dose, contrast media utilisation, image quality, and diagnostic performance of photon-counting detector CT (PCCT) versus energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) in CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched to March 10, 2026. Studies comparing PCCT with EID-CT or reporting PCCT-based CTPA were included. Random-effects meta-analyses evaluated CT dose index volume (CTDIvol), total iodine load (TIL), SNR, and CNR. Sensitivity analyses used the Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
resultsTwelve studies (950 patients) were included. Radiation dose (5 studies, 854 patients) and contrast load (2 studies, 322 patients) were significantly lower with PCCT under standard models: pooled CTDIvol mean difference (MD) was -2.85 mGy (95% CI -5.52 to -0.18) and total iodine load MD was -5.62 gI (95% CI -9.34 to -1.89) (both p < 0.05). However, neither was significant under Hartung-Knapp adjustment (p = 0.113 for CTDIvol; p = 0.208). SNR and CNR showed no significant differences. For chronic thromboembolic disease (2 studies, 109 patients), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PCCT iodine maps were 92.3% (95% CI 85.4-96.1%) and 83.4% (95% CI 75.2-89.3%), respectively.
conclusionPCCT-based CTPA shows potential to reduce radiation dose and contrast load versus EID-CT while maintaining image quality. However, under Hartung-Knapp adjustment, differences were not significant, requiring cautious interpretation under high heterogeneity. KEY POINTS: Question Does photon-counting detector CT (PCCT) reduce radiation dose and contrast media volume in CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for pulmonary embolism compared to energy-integrating detector CT? Findings While PCCT-based CTPA shows significant reductions in radiation dose and iodine load under standard random-effects models, these benefits were not statistically significant under conservative sensitivity analyses (Hartung-Knapp adjustment) due to high protocol heterogeneity. Clinical relevance PCCT-based CTPA has the potential to allow for lower radiation dose and contrast media utilisation, which could help minimise the risks of radiation exposure and contrast-induced nephropathy in vulnerable patients, though protocol standardisation is required to confirm these benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635786What 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.