Image Quality of Multisection CT of the Brain: Thickly Collimated Sequential Scanning versus Thinly Collimated Spiral Scanning with Image Combining

References

1. ↵
   Cody DD, Stevens DM, Ginsberg LE. Multi-detector row CT artifacts that mimic disease. Radiology 2005;236:756–61

   PubMed
2. ↵
   Bahner ML, Reith W, Zuna I, et al. Spiral CT vs incremental CT: is spiral CT superior in imaging of the brain? Eur Radiol 1998;8:416–20

   CrossRefPubMed
3. ↵
   Kuntz R, Skalej M, Stefanou A. Image quality of spiral CT versus conventional CT in routine brain imaging. Eur J Radiol 1998;26:235–40

   PubMed
4. ↵
   Alberico RA, Loud P, Pollina J, et al. Thick-section reformatting of thinly collimated helical CT for reduction of skull base-related artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:1361–66

   PubMed
5. ↵
   Dorenbeck U, Finkenzeller T, Hill K, et al. Volume-artifact reduction technique by spiral CT in the anterior, middle and posterior cranial fossa. Comparison with conventional cranial CT. Rofo 2000;172:342–45

   PubMed
6. ↵
   Jones TR, Kaplan RT, Lane B, et al. Single- versus multi-detector row CT of the brain: quality assessment. Radiology 2001;219:750–55

   PubMed
7. ↵
   Joseph PM, Spital RD. A method for correcting bone induced artifacts in CT scanners. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1978;2:100–08

   PubMed
8. ↵
   Jones D, Shrimpton P. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 3: Normalised organ doses calculated using Monte Carlo techniques. NRPB-R250. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board;1991
9. ↵
   Hsieh J. Tomographic reconstruction for tilted helical multislice CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000;19:864–72

   PubMed
10. ↵
    Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, et al. Numerical Recipes in C++, The Art of Scientific Computing. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press;2002 :413–417
11. ↵
    Gonzalez RC, Woods RE. Digital Image Processing. 3rd ed. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley;1993 :458–61
12. ↵
    Tello R, Crewson PE. Hypothesis testing II: means. Radiology 2003;227:1–4

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. ↵
    Mak HK, Yau KK, Chan BP. Prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ values as additional indicators to measure observer agreement. Radiology 2004;232:302–03

    PubMed
14. ↵
    Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:423–29

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. ↵
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. ↵
    Glover G, Pelc N. Nonlinear partial volume artifacts in x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 1980;7:238–48

    CrossRefPubMed
17. ↵
    Kalender WA. Computed Tomography. Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications. Munich: MCD Verlag;2000 :130–31
18. ↵
    Rydberg J, Buckwalter KA, Caldemeyer KS, et al. Multisection CT: scanning techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics 2000;20:1787–806

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science