A retrospective, semi-quantitative image quality analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and MSCT in the diagnosis of distal radius fractures
Objective To compare image quality and diagnostic validity of CBCT and MSCT for distal radius fractures. Methods 35 CBCT and 33 MSCT scans were retrospectively reviewed with a visual grading scale regarding the depiction of cortical bone, trabecular bone, articular surfaces, and soft tissue. The ext...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2016-12, Vol.26 (12), p.4551-4561 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 4561 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 4551 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 26 |
| creator | Lang, H. Neubauer, J. Fritz, B. Spira, E. M. Strube, J. Langer, M. Kotter, E. |
| description | Objective
To compare image quality and diagnostic validity of CBCT and MSCT for distal radius fractures.
Methods
35 CBCT and 33 MSCT scans were retrospectively reviewed with a visual grading scale regarding the depiction of cortical bone, trabecular bone, articular surfaces, and soft tissue. The extent and type of artefacts was analyzed. Agreement on AO classification and measurement of cortical disruption and length of the fracture gap was determined. Fracture reduction was evaluated in post-treatment x-rays. Statistical analysis was performed with visual grading characteristics (VGC), chi square tests, and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.
Results
CBCT performed significantly worse for cortical bone, articular surfaces, and especially soft tissue. Trabecular bone showed no significant difference. Significantly more CBCT images showed artefacts. Physics-based artefacts were the most common. CBCT scans also showed motion artefacts. There was no significant difference in agreement on AO classification. The agreement on measurements was substantial for both modalities. Slightly more fractures that had undergone MSCT imaging showed adequate reduction.
Conclusion
This initial study of an orthopaedic extremity CBCT scanner showed that the image quality of a CBCT scanner remains inferior for most structures at standard settings. Diagnostic validity of both modalities for distal radius fractures seems similar.
Key Points
•
Subjectively, CBCT remains inferior to MSCT in depicting most structures
.
•
Similar diagnostic validity for CBCT and MSCT imaging of distal radius fractures
.
•
CBCT is a possible alternative to MSCT in musculoskeletal imaging
.
•
Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis proves useful in analyzing visual grading scales
. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-016-4321-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1846413716</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4243074171</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-73af813b9de1153eefd20a2081ebac4809572bb231e9b6edfe5b38c6575766343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU9rFTEUxYNY7Gv1A7iRgJsKRpNJJsks62C1UHHhcx0ykzuvKfOvSabwvoiftxneU0QouMrl5nfOhXMQes3oB0ap-hgp5ZwSyiQRvGBEPUMblifCqBbP0YZWXBNVVeIUncV4RymtmFAv0GmhspJxvUG_LnGAFKY4Q5v8A7zHEQZP7hc7Jp_susJ-sDvAedX7tMd2tP0--oinDrfTCLgBO-RpmJcEDqdpmHbBzrd7fFF_qrfvssDhbz_qLfYjTreAnbe7cTo6OB-T7XGwzi8Rd8G2aQkQX6KTzvYRXh3fc_Tz6vO2_kpuvn-5ri9vSCtomYjittOMN5UDxkoO0LmC2oJqBo1thaZVqYqmKTiDqpHgOigbrltZqlJJyQU_RxcH3zlM9wvEZAYfW-h7O8K0RMO0kIJxxeR_oIWUModaZvTtP-jdtISc20qtZlJSnSl2oNocfwzQmTnkqMPeMGrWfs2hX5P7NWu_RmXNm6Pz0gzg_ih-F5qB4gDE_DXuIPx1-knXRyA6sGk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1837166608</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A retrospective, semi-quantitative image quality analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and MSCT in the diagnosis of distal radius fractures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Lang, H. ; Neubauer, J. ; Fritz, B. ; Spira, E. M. ; Strube, J. ; Langer, M. ; Kotter, E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lang, H. ; Neubauer, J. ; Fritz, B. ; Spira, E. M. ; Strube, J. ; Langer, M. ; Kotter, E.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To compare image quality and diagnostic validity of CBCT and MSCT for distal radius fractures.
Methods
35 CBCT and 33 MSCT scans were retrospectively reviewed with a visual grading scale regarding the depiction of cortical bone, trabecular bone, articular surfaces, and soft tissue. The extent and type of artefacts was analyzed. Agreement on AO classification and measurement of cortical disruption and length of the fracture gap was determined. Fracture reduction was evaluated in post-treatment x-rays. Statistical analysis was performed with visual grading characteristics (VGC), chi square tests, and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.
Results
CBCT performed significantly worse for cortical bone, articular surfaces, and especially soft tissue. Trabecular bone showed no significant difference. Significantly more CBCT images showed artefacts. Physics-based artefacts were the most common. CBCT scans also showed motion artefacts. There was no significant difference in agreement on AO classification. The agreement on measurements was substantial for both modalities. Slightly more fractures that had undergone MSCT imaging showed adequate reduction.
Conclusion
This initial study of an orthopaedic extremity CBCT scanner showed that the image quality of a CBCT scanner remains inferior for most structures at standard settings. Diagnostic validity of both modalities for distal radius fractures seems similar.
Key Points
•
Subjectively, CBCT remains inferior to MSCT in depicting most structures
.
•
Similar diagnostic validity for CBCT and MSCT imaging of distal radius fractures
.
•
CBCT is a possible alternative to MSCT in musculoskeletal imaging
.
•
Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis proves useful in analyzing visual grading scales
.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4321-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27003138</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Area Under Curve ; Cancellous Bone - diagnostic imaging ; Computed Tomography ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - standards ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Fractures ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods ; Multidetector Computed Tomography - standards ; Neuroradiology ; Orthopedics ; Patients ; Radiation ; Radiology ; Radius Fractures - classification ; Radius Fractures - diagnostic imaging ; Retrospective Studies ; Scanners ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sensors ; Tomography ; Ultrasound ; Validity ; X-rays</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2016-12, Vol.26 (12), p.4551-4561</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-73af813b9de1153eefd20a2081ebac4809572bb231e9b6edfe5b38c6575766343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-73af813b9de1153eefd20a2081ebac4809572bb231e9b6edfe5b38c6575766343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-016-4321-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-016-4321-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27003138$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lang, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritz, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spira, E. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strube, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langer, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotter, E.</creatorcontrib><title>A retrospective, semi-quantitative image quality analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and MSCT in the diagnosis of distal radius fractures</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective
To compare image quality and diagnostic validity of CBCT and MSCT for distal radius fractures.
Methods
35 CBCT and 33 MSCT scans were retrospectively reviewed with a visual grading scale regarding the depiction of cortical bone, trabecular bone, articular surfaces, and soft tissue. The extent and type of artefacts was analyzed. Agreement on AO classification and measurement of cortical disruption and length of the fracture gap was determined. Fracture reduction was evaluated in post-treatment x-rays. Statistical analysis was performed with visual grading characteristics (VGC), chi square tests, and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.
Results
CBCT performed significantly worse for cortical bone, articular surfaces, and especially soft tissue. Trabecular bone showed no significant difference. Significantly more CBCT images showed artefacts. Physics-based artefacts were the most common. CBCT scans also showed motion artefacts. There was no significant difference in agreement on AO classification. The agreement on measurements was substantial for both modalities. Slightly more fractures that had undergone MSCT imaging showed adequate reduction.
Conclusion
This initial study of an orthopaedic extremity CBCT scanner showed that the image quality of a CBCT scanner remains inferior for most structures at standard settings. Diagnostic validity of both modalities for distal radius fractures seems similar.
Key Points
•
Subjectively, CBCT remains inferior to MSCT in depicting most structures
.
•
Similar diagnostic validity for CBCT and MSCT imaging of distal radius fractures
.
•
CBCT is a possible alternative to MSCT in musculoskeletal imaging
.
•
Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis proves useful in analyzing visual grading scales
.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Cancellous Bone - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Computed Tomography</subject><subject>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - standards</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography - standards</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radius Fractures - classification</subject><subject>Radius Fractures - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>X-rays</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU9rFTEUxYNY7Gv1A7iRgJsKRpNJJsks62C1UHHhcx0ykzuvKfOvSabwvoiftxneU0QouMrl5nfOhXMQes3oB0ap-hgp5ZwSyiQRvGBEPUMblifCqBbP0YZWXBNVVeIUncV4RymtmFAv0GmhspJxvUG_LnGAFKY4Q5v8A7zHEQZP7hc7Jp_susJ-sDvAedX7tMd2tP0--oinDrfTCLgBO-RpmJcEDqdpmHbBzrd7fFF_qrfvssDhbz_qLfYjTreAnbe7cTo6OB-T7XGwzi8Rd8G2aQkQX6KTzvYRXh3fc_Tz6vO2_kpuvn-5ri9vSCtomYjittOMN5UDxkoO0LmC2oJqBo1thaZVqYqmKTiDqpHgOigbrltZqlJJyQU_RxcH3zlM9wvEZAYfW-h7O8K0RMO0kIJxxeR_oIWUModaZvTtP-jdtISc20qtZlJSnSl2oNocfwzQmTnkqMPeMGrWfs2hX5P7NWu_RmXNm6Pz0gzg_ih-F5qB4gDE_DXuIPx1-knXRyA6sGk</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Lang, H.</creator><creator>Neubauer, J.</creator><creator>Fritz, B.</creator><creator>Spira, E. M.</creator><creator>Strube, J.</creator><creator>Langer, M.</creator><creator>Kotter, E.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>A retrospective, semi-quantitative image quality analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and MSCT in the diagnosis of distal radius fractures</title><author>Lang, H. ; Neubauer, J. ; Fritz, B. ; Spira, E. M. ; Strube, J. ; Langer, M. ; Kotter, E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-73af813b9de1153eefd20a2081ebac4809572bb231e9b6edfe5b38c6575766343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Cancellous Bone - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Computed Tomography</topic><topic>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - standards</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography - standards</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radius Fractures - classification</topic><topic>Radius Fractures - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>X-rays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lang, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritz, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spira, E. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strube, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langer, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotter, E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lang, H.</au><au>Neubauer, J.</au><au>Fritz, B.</au><au>Spira, E. M.</au><au>Strube, J.</au><au>Langer, M.</au><au>Kotter, E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A retrospective, semi-quantitative image quality analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and MSCT in the diagnosis of distal radius fractures</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>4551</spage><epage>4561</epage><pages>4551-4561</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objective
To compare image quality and diagnostic validity of CBCT and MSCT for distal radius fractures.
Methods
35 CBCT and 33 MSCT scans were retrospectively reviewed with a visual grading scale regarding the depiction of cortical bone, trabecular bone, articular surfaces, and soft tissue. The extent and type of artefacts was analyzed. Agreement on AO classification and measurement of cortical disruption and length of the fracture gap was determined. Fracture reduction was evaluated in post-treatment x-rays. Statistical analysis was performed with visual grading characteristics (VGC), chi square tests, and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.
Results
CBCT performed significantly worse for cortical bone, articular surfaces, and especially soft tissue. Trabecular bone showed no significant difference. Significantly more CBCT images showed artefacts. Physics-based artefacts were the most common. CBCT scans also showed motion artefacts. There was no significant difference in agreement on AO classification. The agreement on measurements was substantial for both modalities. Slightly more fractures that had undergone MSCT imaging showed adequate reduction.
Conclusion
This initial study of an orthopaedic extremity CBCT scanner showed that the image quality of a CBCT scanner remains inferior for most structures at standard settings. Diagnostic validity of both modalities for distal radius fractures seems similar.
Key Points
•
Subjectively, CBCT remains inferior to MSCT in depicting most structures
.
•
Similar diagnostic validity for CBCT and MSCT imaging of distal radius fractures
.
•
CBCT is a possible alternative to MSCT in musculoskeletal imaging
.
•
Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis proves useful in analyzing visual grading scales
.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>27003138</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-016-4321-7</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2016-12, Vol.26 (12), p.4551-4561 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1846413716 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Area Under Curve Cancellous Bone - diagnostic imaging Computed Tomography Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - standards Diagnostic Radiology Fractures Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods Multidetector Computed Tomography - standards Neuroradiology Orthopedics Patients Radiation Radiology Radius Fractures - classification Radius Fractures - diagnostic imaging Retrospective Studies Scanners Sensitivity and Specificity Sensors Tomography Ultrasound Validity X-rays |
| title | A retrospective, semi-quantitative image quality analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and MSCT in the diagnosis of distal radius fractures |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T19%3A37%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20retrospective,%20semi-quantitative%20image%20quality%20analysis%20of%20cone%20beam%20computed%20tomography%20(CBCT)%20and%20MSCT%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20distal%20radius%20fractures&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Lang,%20H.&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=4551&rft.epage=4561&rft.pages=4551-4561&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-016-4321-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4243074171%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1837166608&rft_id=info:pmid/27003138&rfr_iscdi=true |