AIM: To compare the quality of CT brain images produced by a fixed CT scanner and a portable CT scanner (CereTom).
METHODS: This work was a single-centre retrospective study of CT brain images from 112 neurosurgical patients. Hounsfield units (HUs) of the images from CereTom were measured for air, water and bone. Three assessors independently evaluated the images from the fixed CT scanner and CereTom. Streak artefacts, visualisation of lesions and grey-white matter differentiation were evaluated at three different levels (centrum semiovale, basal ganglia and middle cerebellar peduncles). Each evaluation was scored 1 (poor), 2 (average) or 3 (good) and summed up to form an ordinal reading of 3 to 9.
RESULTS: HUs for air, water and bone from CereTom were within the recommended value by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Streak artefact evaluation scores for the fixed CT scanner was 8.54 versus 7.46 (Z = -5.67) for CereTom at the centrum semiovale, 8.38 (SD = 1.12) versus 7.32 (SD = 1.63) at the basal ganglia and 8.21 (SD = 1.30) versus 6.97 (SD = 2.77) at the middle cerebellar peduncles. Grey-white matter differentiation showed scores of 8.27 (SD = 1.04) versus 7.21 (SD = 1.41) at the centrum semiovale, 8.26 (SD = 1.07) versus 7.00 (SD = 1.47) at the basal ganglia and 8.38 (SD = 1.11) versus 6.74 (SD = 1.55) at the middle cerebellar peduncles. Visualisation of lesions showed scores of 8.86 versus 8.21 (Z = -4.24) at the centrum semiovale, 8.93 versus 8.18 (Z = -5.32) at the basal ganglia and 8.79 versus 8.06 (Z = -4.93) at the middle cerebellar peduncles. All results were significant with P-value < 0.01.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study showed a significant difference in image quality produced by the fixed CT scanner and CereTom, with the latter being more inferior than the former. However, HUs of the images produced by CereTom do fulfil the recommendation of the ACR.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline), focusing on studies involving more than four weeks of dance interventions. MeSH terms [dance or dance intervention or dance rehabilitation or dance movement] and [motor function or functional capacity or postural control or functional mobility or mobility or postural balance or balance or flexibility or gait] and [well-being or quality of life or life satisfaction] were utilized in the search. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023422857). Included studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias.
RESULTS: The search revealed 885 studies, and 16 met the inclusion criteria. The effects of various dance genres on physical functions and quality of life were compared. Most studies showed that dance intervention improved physical function, balance, postural control and quality of life. Dance intervention showed a high level of adherence compared to physiotherapy, self-care, conventional therapy, and aerobic and resistance exercise.
CONCLUSION: In terms of improving physical function and quality of life, structured dance is a safe and relatively effective alternative to exercise. Note the effect of movement selection and intensity in the dance interventions. Dance with music may increase participants' interest, encouraging more physical activity among middle-aged and older adults.