Iterative Reconstruction in Head CT: Image Quality of Routine and Low-Dose Protocols in Comparison with Standard Filtered Back-Projection

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Brenner DJ,
   2. Hall EJ

   . Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2277– 84

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Brenner DJ

   . Slowing the increase in the population dose resulting from CT scans. Radiat Res 2010; 174: 809– 15

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Mahesh M

   . NCRP report number 160: its significance to medical imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6: 890– 92

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Kalra MK,
   2. Maher MM,
   3. Blake MA,
   4. et al

   . Detection and characterization of lesions on low-radiation-dose abdominal CT images postprocessed with noise reduction filters. Radiology 2004; 232: 791– 97

   PubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Kalra MK,
   2. Maher MM,
   3. Toth TL,
   4. et al

   . Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004; 233: 649– 57

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Mettler FA Jr.,
   2. Wiest PW,
   3. Locken JA,
   4. et al

   . CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000; 20: 353– 59

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Mullins ME,
   2. Lev MH,
   3. Bove P,
   4. et al

   . Comparison of image quality between conventional and low-dose nonenhanced head CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004; 25: 533– 38

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Udayasankar UK,
   2. Braithwaite K,
   3. Arvaniti M,
   4. et al

   . Low-dose nonenhanced head CT protocol for follow-up evaluation of children with ventriculoperitoneal shunt: reduction of radiation and effect on image quality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008; 29: 802– 06

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Vock P

   . CT dose reduction in children. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 2330– 40

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Nuyts J,
    2. De Man B,
    3. Dupont P,
    4. et al

    . Iterative reconstruction for helical CT: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol 1998; 43: 729– 37

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Thibault JB,
    2. Sauer KD,
    3. Bouman CA,
    4. et al

    . A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 2007; 34: 4526– 44

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Bruder H RR,
    2. Sunnegardh J,
    3. Stiersturter K,
    4. et al

    . Translation of statistical iterative reconstruction into non-linear image processing. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Illinois. November 28-December 3, 2010
13. 13.↵
    1. Bittencourt MS,
    2. Schmidt B,
    3. Seltmann M,
    4. et al

    . Iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) in cardiac computed tomography: initial experience. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 27: 1081– 87

    PubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Gosling O,
    2. Loader R,
    3. Venables P,
    4. et al

    . A comparison of radiation doses between state-of-the-art multislice CT coronary angiography with iterative reconstruction, multislice CT coronary angiography with standard filtered back-projection and invasive diagnostic coronary angiography. Heart 2010; 96: 922– 26

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Leipsic J,
    2. Nguyen G,
    3. Brown J,
    4. et al

    . A prospective evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 1095– 99

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Pontana F,
    2. Duhamel A,
    3. Pagniez J,
    4. et al

    . Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection. Part 2. Image quality of low-dose CT examinations in 80 patients. Eur Radiol 1011; 21: 636–43. Epub 2010 Nov 16
17. 17.↵
    1. Sagara Y,
    2. Hara AK,
    3. Pavlicek W,
    4. et al

    . Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 713– 19

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Silva AC,
    2. Lawder HJ,
    3. Hara A,
    4. et al

    . Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 191– 99

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Singh S,
    2. Kalra MK,
    3. Hsieh J,
    4. et al

    . Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010; 257: 373– 83. Epub 2010 Sep 9

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Shrimpton PC,
    2. Hillier MC,
    3. Lewis MA,
    4. et al

    . National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 968– 80

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Singh S,
    2. Kalra MK,
    3. Gilman MD,
    4. et al

    . Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 2011; 259: 565– 73. Epub 2011 Mar 8

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Bogartz G,
    2. Golding SJ,
    3. Jurik AG,
    4. et al.,
    5. for the European Study Group of Radiologists and Physicists

    . European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. 1999. http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality. Accessed May 15, 2011
23. 23.↵
    1. Jaffe TA,
    2. Hoang JK,
    3. Yoshizumi TT,
    4. et al

    . Radiation dose for routine clinical adult brain CT: variability on different scanners at one institution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 433– 38

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Tsapaki V,
    2. Aldrich JE,
    3. Sharma R,
    4. et al

    . Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT: IAEA-coordinated research project. Radiology 2006; 240: 828– 34. Epub 2006 Jul 12

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science