ArticlePediatric radiology2013
Paediatric urological investigations--dose comparison between urology-related and CT irradiation.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of pediatric VCUG at an academic children's hospital: is the radiographic scout image necessary?Pediatric radiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrological investigation in children frequently involves high radiation doses; however, the issue of radiation for these investigations receives little attention compared with CT.
objectiveTo compare the radiation dose from paediatric urological investigations with CT, which is commonly regarded as the more major source of radiation exposure. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective audit in a tertiary paediatric centre of the number and radiation dose of CT scans, micturating cystourethrography exams and urological nuclear medicine scans from 2006 to 2011. This was compared with radiation doses in the literature and an audit of the frequency of these studies in Australia.
resultsThe tertiary centre audit demonstrated that the ratio of the frequency of urological to CT examinations was 0.8:1 in children younger than 17 years. The ratio of the radiation dose of urological to CT examinations was 0.7:1. The ratio in children younger than 5 years was 1.9:1. In Australia the frequency of urological procedures compared with CT was 0.4:1 in children younger than 17 years and 3.1:1 in those younger than 5 years. The ratio of radiation-related publications was 1:9 favouring CT.
conclusionThe incidence and radiation dose of paediatric urological studies is comparable to those of CT. Nevertheless the radiation dose of urological procedures receives considerably less attention in the literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.