Trial reportEuropean radiology2013
Radiation dose to procedural personnel and patients from an X-ray volume imaging system.
Trial report in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrafast cone-beam computed tomography: a comparative study of imaging protocols during image-guided therapy procedure.BioMed research international · 2015Trial
- Reduction of operator radiation exposure using a passive robotic device during fluoroscopy-guided arterial puncture: an experimental study in a swine model.European radiology experimental · 2019Article
- Ultrafast cone-beam computed tomography imaging and postprocessing data during image-guided therapeutic practice.European radiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the radiation dose received by procedural personnel and patients from an X-ray volume imaging (XVI) system during interventional procedures.
methodsForty patients were examined using catheter angiography (group A), digital subtraction angiography (group B) and cone-beam CT (CBCT, group C). Doses to procedural personnel (using thermo-luminescent dosimeters, TLDs) and patients were estimated. Image quality and lesion delineation were assessed using objective and subjective methods. Shapiro-Wilk, two-sided Student's t and Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests were used to test statistical significance.
resultsDoses (milligrays) measured in the hands and left knee of the interventionist were higher than those in an assistant physician (P < 0.05). Doses (dose-area product and skin entry dose) were lower in group A and higher in C compared with other groups; moreover, comparison among the groups were significant (all P = 0.0001). Subjective and objective lesion delineation showed significant results (all P < 0.05) among the tumour types considered. Image quality estimation showed the opposite results for objective and subjective analysis.
conclusionMore doses were obtained for hands of the procedural personnel compared to other anatomical regions measured. Catheter angiography showed lower dose compared with other imaging groups examined. Lesion delineation was clearly possible using CBCT. Objective and subjective analysis showed the opposite results regarding image quality because of higher noise levels and artefacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23812243What 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.