Recalling the Usefulness of Conebeam CT in Temporal Bone Imaging: Higher Resolution with Lower Radiation Dose.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Evaluation of Stapes Image Quality with Ultra-High-Resolution CT in Comparison with Conebeam CT and High-Resolution CT in Cadaveric Heads.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025
   Article
2. Training and validation of a deep learning U-net architecture general model for automated segmentation of inner ear from CT.European radiology experimental · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  2022
• Comment on
  A New Frontier in Temporal Bone Imaging: Photon-Counting Detector CT Demonstrates Superior Visualization of Critical Anatomic Structures at Reduced Radiation Dose.2022

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as