Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39088264›Full record

ReviewInvestigative radiology2025

Photon-Counting Detector CT Applications in Musculoskeletal Radiology.

Jan-Peter Grunz, Henner Huflage

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Investigative radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Simulated low-dose multi-detector computed tomography: spatial effects on surrogate parameters of bone strength at the proximal femur.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jan-Peter GrunzFrom the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (J.G., H.H.); and Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI (J.G.).ORCID 0000-0002-4524-1620
Henner Huflage

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractPhoton-counting detectors (PCDs) have emerged as one of the most influential technical developments for medical imaging in recent memory. Surpassing conventional systems with energy-integrating detector technology in many aspects, PCD-CT scanners provide superior spatial resolution and dose efficiency for all radiological subspecialities. Demanding detailed display of trabecular microarchitecture and extensive anatomical coverage frequently within the same scan, musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging in particular can be a beneficiary of PCD-CT's remarkable performance. Since PCD-CT provides users with a plethora of customization options for both image acquisition and reconstruction, however, MSK radiologists need to be familiar with the scanner to unlock its full potential. From filter-based spectral shaping for artifact reduction over full field-of-view ultra-high-resolution scans to postprocessing of single- or dual-source multienergy data, almost every imaging task can be met with an optimized approach in PCD-CT. The objectives of this review were to give an overview of the most promising applications of PCD-CT in MSK imaging to date, to state current limitations, and to highlight directions for future research and developments.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesMusculoskeletal SystemTomography, X-Ray ComputedEquipment DesignHumansPhotons

Identifiers

PMID39088264
PMCPMC11801470

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.