ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Dual-energy CT-generated bone marrow edema maps improve reader confidence without changing fracture detection rates in bony pelvis trauma.
Article in Skeletal 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic utility of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) virtual non-calcium bone marrow edema (BME) maps in the assessment of osseous pelvic trauma compared to conventional CT. In addition to fracture detection rates, we sought to determine the DECT effect on reader diagnostic confidence and follow-up recommendations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree radiologists performed independent retrospective reviews of 92 consecutive pelvic CTs for the presence of fractures, without the use of DECT-generated BME maps. Following a washout period of ≥ 4 weeks, the cases were re-reviewed with the addition of DECT BME maps. Comparison of fracture detection rates, frequency of "indeterminate" reads, reader confidence ratings, and follow-up imaging recommendations were performed using McNemar's test and mixed-effects logistic regressions. Mixed-effect models were utilized to assess the effect of DEXA-derived patient bone mineral density, when available, on fracture detection rates.
resultsThe use of DECT BME maps resulted in higher pooled reader diagnostic confidence, with a mean 0.19 increase on a 5-point Likert scale (p < 0.001). There was, however, no statistically significant difference in fracture detection rates for readers utilizing DECT versus conventional CT alone, with similar rates of "indeterminate" interpretations between the groups. For patients with recent DEXAs (n = 27), DECT was not associated with change in fracture detection rates among patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. Readers recommended follow-up imaging more frequently in cases interpreted with DECT, but this effect was not significant (p = 0.266).
conclusionWhen interpreting pelvic CT for trauma, DECT-generated BME maps increased diagnostic confidence without changing detection rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42665718What 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.