We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis.
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2003 October
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare low- and standard-dose multidetector CT (MDCT) findings in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty patients underwent MDCT at 10 and 150 effective mAs. The low-dose MDCT protocol delivered a radiation dose of 0.047 mSv in men and 0.051 mSv in women, whereas the standard-dose MDCT protocol delivered a radiation dose of 0.70 mSv in men and 0.76 mSv in women. Scans of the right and left sides of sinonasal cavities were reviewed by three radiologists, with each physician reviewing a scan twice over an interval of more than 2 weeks. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the scans for eight mucosal and two bone abnormalities. We calculated the number of discrepancies in observed abnormalities between pairs of reviewers, among all three reviewers, and between findings on scans acquired with the two radiation doses.
RESULTS: The mean number of discrepancies in observed abnormalities on scans acquired with different radiation doses ranged from 0 to 5.2. Discrepancies between pairs of reviewers ranged from 1.0 to 12.8 for low-dose scans and from 1.0 to 13.0 for standard-dose scans. Discrepancies among all reviewers ranged from 1.0 to 10.3 for low-dose scans and from 1.0 to 8.7 for standard-dose scans. In analyzing cases of significant discrepancies in observations, we found greater variation between pairs of reviewers and among all three reviewers than between findings obtained with different dose levels.
CONCLUSION: Dose reduction played a far less important role in discrepancies of detected abnormalities than did the human element of reviewer observation. Given this finding and the fact that low-dose MDCT delivers a radiation dose that is no higher than that delivered by a four-view radiographic examination, low-dose MDCT should be considered the imaging method of choice in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis.
RESULTS: The mean number of discrepancies in observed abnormalities on scans acquired with different radiation doses ranged from 0 to 5.2. Discrepancies between pairs of reviewers ranged from 1.0 to 12.8 for low-dose scans and from 1.0 to 13.0 for standard-dose scans. Discrepancies among all reviewers ranged from 1.0 to 10.3 for low-dose scans and from 1.0 to 8.7 for standard-dose scans. In analyzing cases of significant discrepancies in observations, we found greater variation between pairs of reviewers and among all three reviewers than between findings obtained with different dose levels.
CONCLUSION: Dose reduction played a far less important role in discrepancies of detected abnormalities than did the human element of reviewer observation. Given this finding and the fact that low-dose MDCT delivers a radiation dose that is no higher than that delivered by a four-view radiographic examination, low-dose MDCT should be considered the imaging method of choice in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app