The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Image Quality and Radiation Exposure at Pulmonary CT Angiography with 100- or 120-kVp Protocol: Prospective Randomized Study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare 16-section multidetector computed tomography (CT) at 100 and 120 kVp for image quality and radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study had institutional review board approval; written informed consent was obtained. Sixty patients were referred for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism with CT angiography. Patients were randomly assigned to a 100-kVp (n = 30; 17 men, 13 women; mean age, 66 years +/- 17 [standard deviation]; range, 19-89 years) or 120-kVp (n = 30; 15 men, 15 women; mean age, 62 years +/- 15; range, 28-86 years) protocol. Other scanning parameters were kept constant. Contrast medium was injected automatically with bolus tracking. Pulmonary vessel enhancement and image noise were quantified; signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. Subjective vessel contrast was assessed by two radiologists in consensus. Effective dose was calculated on the basis of dose length product and volume CT dose index. Results of both protocols were compared by using the chi(2) test and Student t test. RESULTS: The 100-kVp protocol had a nonsignificantly higher mean vessel attenuation than the 120-kVp protocol (386.8 HU +/- 130.1 vs 317.9 HU +/- 112.5; P = .56) and a nonsignificantly higher image noise (16.9 HU +/- 5.8 vs 13.7 HU +/- 6.2; P = .84), which resulted in almost identical SNR (25.3 +/- 11.7 vs 27.0 +/- 14.5; P = .37) and CNR (22.0 +/- 11.2 vs 22.9 +/- 13.1; P = .51). There was no significant difference in subjective image quality between protocols. Mean effective dose for the 100-kVp protocol was significantly lower than that for the 120-kVp protocol (1.37 mSv +/- 0.39 vs 2.44 mSv +/- 0.97; -44%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Reduction of kilovoltage from 120 to 100 kVp resulted in significant reduction of effective dose at pulmonary CT angiography, without significant loss of objective or subjective image quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Singh, S., Kalra, M. K., Hsieh, J., Licato, P. E., Do, S., Pien, H. H., & Blake, M. A. (2010) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.10092212 · Cited by 435
Lee, W.-J., Ahn, B.-S., & Park, Y.-S. (2012) · Journal of Radiation Protection and Research · doi:10.14407/jrp.2012.37.2.084 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Heyer, C. M., Mohr, P. S., Lemburg, S. P., Peters, S. A., & Nicolas, V.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 245
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 577-583
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2099445607
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Image Quality and Radiation Exposure at Pulmonary CT Angiography with 100- or 120-kVp Protocol: Prospective Randomized Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2452061919
- The paper
- Heyer, C. M., Mohr, P. S., Lemburg, S. P., Peters, S. A., & Nicolas, V. (2007). Image Quality and Radiation Exposure at Pulmonary CT Angiography with 100- or 120-kVp Protocol: Prospective Randomized Study. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2452061919
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
