Cited 151 times since 2013 (20.9 per year) source: Scopus European radiology, Volume 23, Issue 6, 16 January 2013, Pages 1632-1642 Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Willemink MJ, Leiner T, de Jong PA, de Heer LM, Nievelstein RA, Schilham AM, Budde RP


To present the results of a systematic literature search aimed at determining to what extent the radiation dose can be reduced with iterative reconstruction (IR) for cardiopulmonary and body imaging with computed tomography (CT) in the clinical setting and what the effects on image quality are with IR versus filtered back-projection (FBP) and to provide recommendations for future research on IR.


We searched Medline and Embase from January 2006 to January 2012 and included original research papers concerning IR for CT.


The systematic search yielded 380 articles. Forty-nine relevant studies were included. These studies concerned

the chest(n = 26), abdomen(n = 16), both chest and abdomen(n = 1), head(n = 4), spine(n = 1), and no specific area (n = 1). IR reduced noise and artefacts, and it improved subjective and objective image quality compared to FBP at the same dose. Conversely, low-dose IR and normal-dose FBP showed similar noise, artefacts, and subjective and objective image quality. Reported dose reductions ranged from 23 to 76 % compared to locally used default FBP settings. However, IR has not yet been investigated for ultra-low-dose acquisitions with clinical diagnosis and accuracy as endpoints.


Benefits of IR include improved subjective and objective image quality as well as radiation dose reduction while preserving image quality. Future studies need to address the value of IR in ultra-low-dose CT with clinically relevant endpoints.

Key points

• Iterative reconstruction improves image quality of CT images at equal acquisition parameters. • IR preserves image quality compared to normal-dose filtered back-projection. • The reduced radiation dose made possible by IR is advantageous for patients. • IR has not yet been investigated with clinical diagnosis and accuracy as endpoints.

Eur Radiol. 2013 Jan;23(6):1632-1642