ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
High performance of low-dose ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting detector CT for sacroiliac joint assessment in axial spondyloarthritis.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the performance of low-dose (LD) ultrahigh-resolution (UHR) photon-counting detector (PCD) CT with energy-integrating detector (EID) CT for sacroiliac joint assessment in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Materials and Methods: This was a prospective randomized study. AxSpA patients were enrolled and assigned to LD or clinical dose (CD) groups. Patients underwent UHR PCD-CT of the sacroiliac joints at low radiation dose (IQ level, 30), followed by EID-CT scanning using either LD (matched to PCD-CT dose) or CD protocols (108 quality reference mAs). Image noise, signal-to-noise ratio, interobserver reproducibility, subjective image quality, diagnostic confidence, and structural damage scores were evaluated by two radiologists and compared. Results: In total, 40 patients were enrolled (LD group: n = 20, 36.5 ± 9.8 years, 8 females; CD group, n = 20, 35.5 ± 8.8 years, 8 females). Compared with CD EID-CT, PCD-CT delivered lower effective dose (0.63 ± 0.23 mSv vs. 1.79 ± 1.05 mSv, Conclusion: LD UHR PCD-CT reduced radiation dose by 65% compared with CD EID-CT, and improved structural lesion visualization and diagnostic confidence compared with both LD and CD EID-CT.
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.