ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
Optimising image quality in intravenous cerebral cone beam computed tomography.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- High-resolution cone-beam CT (DynaCT Micro) enhances preoperative and intraoperative visualization of intracranial perforator arteries.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- The FRED-X Flow Diverter-An Australian Experience.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Article
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
introductionThe efficacy of intravenous cerebral Cone Beam Computed Tomography (IV CBCT) is well established; however, image quality has only ever been authenticated by subjective evaluation. The aim of this study was to quantify the factors pertinent to achieving consistent and optimal image quality when performing IV CBCT.
methodsBetween 1 March 2021 and 30 October 2022, 79 patients received IV CBCT. These candidates were divided into three main acquisition field size categories (22/32, 42 and 48 cm) according to the clinical indication. The images were analysed using both a quantitative assessment and a subjective evaluation. Here, a comparison of Hounsfield units (HUs), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and noise index was conducted for each study and compared relative to the acquisition field size. The subjective analysis was performed in a non-blinded fashion where the diagnostic value (DV) of the exam was determined according to a graded scale. A phantom analysis for each of the acquisition field sizes was conducted and modulation transfer function (MTF) graphed.
resultsSignificantly higher HU, SNR, CNR and lower noise indices were achieved with the 42-cm protocol than the 22/32 and 48-cm protocols. Here a greater DV was also reported. The MTF demonstrates marginally improved spatial resolution for the 22-cm protocol, but this is near equivocal for the 32-, 42 and 48-cm protocols.
conclusionThe use of larger acquisition field sizes provides improved image quality when performing IV CBCT as an alternative to intra-arterial (IA) CBCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.