Evaluation of Lower-Dose Spiral Head CT for Detection of Intracranial Findings Causing Neurologic Deficits

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Smith-Bindman R,
   3. Wang Y,
   4. Yellen-Nelson TR, et al

   . Predictors of CT radiation dose and their effect on patient care: a comprehensive analysis using automated data. Radiology 2017;282:182–93 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151391 pmid:27438166

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/alara.html. Accessed February 22, 2019
3. 3.↵
   2. McCollough CH,
   3. Bushberg JT,
   4. Fletcher JG, et al

   . Answers to common questions about the use and safety of CT scans. Mayo Clin Proc 2015;90:1380–92 doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.011 pmid:26434964

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. McCollough CH,
   3. Guimaraes L,
   4. Fletcher JG

   . In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:28–39 doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2754 pmid:19542392

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Gabriel S,
   3. Eckel LJ,
   4. DeLone DR, et al

   . Pilot study of radiation dose reduction for pediatric head CT in evaluation of ventricular size. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2237–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4056 pmid:25082822

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Montoya JC,
   3. Eckel LJ,
   4. DeLone DR, et al

   . Low-dose CT for craniosynostosis: preserving diagnostic benefit with substantial radiation dose reduction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:672–77 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5063 pmid:28183836

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Widmann G,
   3. Schullian P,
   4. Gassner EM, et al

   . Ultralow-dose CT of the craniofacial bone for navigated surgery using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction: 2D and 3D image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:563–69 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12766 pmid:25714286

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Fletcher JG,
   3. Fidler JL,
   4. Venkatesh SK, et al

   . Observer performance with varying radiation dose and reconstruction methods for detection of hepatic metastases. Radiology 2018;289:455–64 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018180125 pmid:30204077

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Mileto A,
   3. Zamora DA,
   4. Alessio AM, et al

   . CT detectability of small low-contrast hypoattenuating focal lesions: iterative reconstructions versus filtered back projection. Radiology 2018;289:443–54 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018180137 pmid:30015591

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Goenka AH,
    3. Herts BR,
    4. Obuchowski NA, et al

    . Effect of reduced radiation exposure and iterative reconstruction on detection of low-contrast low-attenuation lesions in an anthropomorphic liver phantom: an 18-reader study. Radiology 2014;272:154–63 doi:10.1148/radiol.14131928 pmid:24620913

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Jensen CT,
    3. Wagner-Bartak NA,
    4. Vu LN, et al

    . Detection of colorectal hepatic metastases is superior at standard radiation dose CT versus reduced dose CT. Radiology 2019;290:400–09 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018181657 pmid:30480489

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Fletcher JG,
    3. Yu L,
    4. Fidler JL, et al

    . Estimation of observer performance for reduced radiation dose levels in CT: eliminating reduced dose levels that are too low is the first step. Acad Radiology 2017;24:876–90 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2016.12.017 pmid:28262519

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Yu L,
    3. Shiung MM,
    4. Jondal D, et al

    . Development and validation of a practical lower-dose-simulation tool for optimizing CT scan protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012;36:477–87 doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e318258e891 pmid:22805680

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Fletcher JG,
    3. Yu L,
    4. Li Z, et al

    . Observer performance in the detection and classification of malignant hepatic nodules and masses with CT image-space denoising and iterative reconstruction. Radiology 2015;276:465–78 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015141991 pmid:26020436

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Briggs M,
    3. Closs JS

    . A descriptive study of the use of visual analogue scales and verbal rating scales for the assessment of postoperative pain in orthopedic patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999;18:438–46 doi:10.1016/S0885-3924(99)00092-5 pmid:10641470

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Hadjiiski L,
    3. Chan HP,
    4. Sahiner B, et al

    . Quasi-continuous and discrete confidence rating scales for observer performance studies: effects on ROC analysis. Acad Radiol 2007;14:38–48 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2006.09.048 pmid:17178364

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Dendumrongsup T,
    3. Plumb AA,
    4. Halligan S, et al

    . Multi-reader multi-case studies using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve as a measure of diagnostic accuracy: systematic review with a focus on quality of data reporting. PLoS One 2014;9:e116018 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116018 pmid:25541977

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Froemming AT,
    3. Kawashima A,
    4. Takahashi N, et al

    . Individualized kV selection and tube current reduction in excretory phase computed tomography urography: potential for radiation dose reduction and the contribution of iterative reconstruction to image quality. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013;37:551–59 doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e31828f871f

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Chakraborty D,
    3. Yoon H

    . JAFROC analysis revisited: figure-of-merit considerations for human observer studies. Proceedings of SPIE 2009;7263:72630T doi:10.1117/12.810859 pmid:23863531

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Chakraborty D,
    3. Philips P,
    4. Zhai X, et al

    . RJafroc: Analyzing Diagnostic Observer Performance Studies. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RJafroc. Accessed January 14, 2019
21. 21.↵
    2. Harris M,
    3. Huckle J,
    4. Anthony D, et al

    . The acceptability of iterative reconstruction algorithms in head CT: an assessment of sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) vs. filtered back projection (FBP) using phantoms. J Med IMag Rad Sci 2017;48:259–69 doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2017.04.002 pmid:31047408

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Korn A,
    3. Fenchel M,
    4. Bender B, et al

    . Iterative reconstruction in head CT: image quality of routine and low-dose protocols in comparison with standard filtered back-projection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:218–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2749 pmid:22033719

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    2. Love A,
    3. Olsson ML,
    4. Siemund R, et al

    . Six iterative reconstruction algorithms in brain CT: a phantom study on image quality at different radiation dose levels. Br J Radiol 2013;86:20130388 doi:10.1259/bjr.20130388 pmid:24049128

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Wu TH,
    3. Hung SC,
    4. Sun JY, et al

    . How far can the radiation dose be lowered in head CT with iterative reconstruction? Analysis of imaging quality and diagnostic accuracy. Eur Radiol 2013;23:2612–21 doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2846-6 pmid:23645331

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Pace I,
    3. Zarb F

    . A comparison of sequential and spiral scanning techniques in brain CT. Radiol Technol 2015;86:373–78 pmid:25835403

    Abstract/FREE Full Text