| Title |
Diagnostic accuracy of low-dose versus ultra-low-dose CT for lumbar disc disease and facet joint osteoarthritis in patients with low back pain with MRI correlation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Skeletal Radiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00256-017-2811-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sun Hwa Lee, Seong Jong Yun, Hyeon Hwan Jo, Dong Hyeon Kim, Jae Gwang Song, Yong Sung Park |
| Abstract |
To compare the image quality, radiation dose, and diagnostic performance between low-dose (LD) and ultra-low-dose (ULD) lumbar-spine (L-spine) CT with iterative reconstruction (IR) for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). In total, 260 patients with chronic LBP who underwent L-spine CT between November 2015 and September 2016 were prospectively enrolled. Of these, 143 underwent LD-CT with IR and 117 underwent ULD-CT with IR. The patients were divided according to their body mass index (BMI) into BMI1 (<22.9 kg/m(2)), BMI2 (23.0-24.9 kg/m(2)), and BMI3 (≥25 kg/m(2)) groups. Two blinded radiologists independently evaluated the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), qualitative image quality, and final diagnoses (lumbar disc disease and facet joint osteoarthritis). L-spine MRIs interpreted by consensus were used as the reference standard. All data were statistically analyzed. ULD protocol showed significantly lower SNR for all patients (p < 0.001) except the vertebral bodies and lower qualitative image quality for BMI3 patients (p ≤ 0.033). There was no statistically significant difference between ULD (sensitivity, 95.1-98.1%; specificity, 92.5-98.7%; accuracy, 94.6-98.0%) and LD protocols (sensitivity, 95.6-100%; specificity, 95.5-98.9%; accuracy, 97.4-98.1%), (all p≥0.1) in the BMI1 and BMI2; while dose was 60-68% lower with the ULD protocol. Interobserver agreements were excellent or good with regard to image quality and final diagnoses. For the BM1 and BMI2 groups, ULD-CT provided an acceptable image quality and exhibited a diagnostic accuracy similar to that of LD-CT. These findings suggest that it is a useful diagnostic tool for patients with chronic LBP who exhibit a BMI of <25 kg/m(2). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,495,840
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#949
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,204
of 330,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#21
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.