Key result
Cardiothoracic ratio derived from helical CT showed no significant difference compared to plain film radiography, with an index differing by 0.044/patient between the two modalities.
Why the study?
Does cardiothoracic ratio derived from Helical CT correlate with that from plain film radiography?
Observational
Does cardiothoracic ratio derived from Helical CT correlate with that from plain film radiography?
Cardiothoracic ratio derived from Helical CT correlates well with plain film radiography, allowing for rapid comparison of heart size between the two modalities.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May allow interchangeable cardiothoracic ratio assessment via helical CT or plain films; leaves open prospective validation in larger cohorts.
PURPOSE Although it has been a widely followed principle that a cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) of .44), while a CTR index derived from averaging the long and short axis cardiac diam eter on HCT differed from radiographic transverse CTR by a simila r 0.044/patient. CONCLUSION There is no significant difference in CTR, the tradi tional standard of cardiac enlargement, derived from either CXR o r HCT. Therefore, CTR may be a useful, rapid means of correlatin g an individual's heart size between the two modalities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2000 study conducted an observational in Cardiac enlargement. Helical CT (HCT) vs. Plain film radiography (CXR) was evaluated on Cardiothoracic ratio (CTR). Cardiothoracic ratio derived from helical CT showed no significant difference compared to plain film radiography, with an index differing by 0.044/patient between the two modalities.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: