ArticlePediatric radiology2013
Foreign bodies: radiopaque compared to what?
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiographic imaging in pediatric suspected foreign body ingestion: potential for dose reduction through collimation and exposure strategies.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Ultrasonographic and CBCT analysis of foreign bodies and dental materials.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Sonographic features of various dental materials and foreign bodies.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
- Radiology of foreign bodies: how do we image them?Emergency radiology · 2015Article
- Seasonal foreign bodies: the dangers of winter holiday ornamentation.Pediatric radiology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe term "radiopaque" is commonly used when discussing foreign bodies and lists of radiopaque and non-radiopaque materials are sometimes created, but radiopacity is not a binary concept. A more fundamental understanding of radiopacity is necessary for the work-up of foreign bodies.
objectiveTo demonstrate that "radiopaque" is a relative term. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty foreign bodies of various sizes, shapes and materials were placed in a basin. Radiographs were obtained of the objects with 0, 2.5, 5 and 10 cm depth of water in the basin to simulate the appearance of a foreign body in human tissue. The progressively changing appearance of the objects was observed.
resultsAll of the objects were radiographically visible in the empty basin. Different objects demonstrated different appearances when immersed in progressively deeper levels of water, illustrating the effect of the surrounding water as well as the effects of object shape, size, orientation and composition.
conclusionThe concept of radiopacity seems simple and the term "radiopaque" is sometimes used to describe an all or none phenomenon. However, radiopacity is a comparative concept implying relative X-ray attenuation. Accurate understanding of the radiographic appearance of foreign bodies requires one to keep in mind the concepts of relative X-ray attenuation and contrast resolution.
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.