Clinical imaging · 2017
Unenhanced computed tomography for normal appendix detection: comparison of low-dose with statistical iterative reconstruction and regular-dose with filtered back projection.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Hwi Ryong, Park Sung Bin, Lee Eun Sun, Park Hyun Jeong, Lee Jong Beum, Kim Yang Soo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the differences in visualization of a normal appendix between regular-dose (RD) and low-dose (LD) unenhanced CT.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 179 patients underwent both RDCT and LDCT for urolithiasis. Two reviewers evaluated the appendiceal visualization on a three-point scale. Sensitivities and interobserver agreement were measured.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between RDCT and LDCT in sensitivity, regardless of the reviewer. Interobserver agreement was excellent in both RDCT and LDCT.
CONCLUSION: Unenhanced LDCT is a good tool for detecting a normal appendix and is also useful for less experienced interpreters who are unfamiliar with using LDCT images.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 179 patients underwent both RDCT and LDCT for urolithiasis. Two reviewers evaluated the appendiceal visualization on a three-point scale. Sensitivities and interobserver agreement were measured.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between RDCT and LDCT in sensitivity, regardless of the reviewer. Interobserver agreement was excellent in both RDCT and LDCT.
CONCLUSION: Unenhanced LDCT is a good tool for detecting a normal appendix and is also useful for less experienced interpreters who are unfamiliar with using LDCT images.