ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2014
Prioritizing examination-centered over patient-centered dose reduction: a hazard of institutional "benchmarking".
Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this article is to evaluate whether examination-specific radiation dose metrics reliably measure an institution's success in reducing cancer risks. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe projected health benefits from dose-reduction programs in a hypothetical institution that sought to decrease exposures from abdominopelvic CT. Using modeling techniques to project radiation-induced cancer risks and tertiary center data to inform the institution's abdominopelvic CT age distribution, we compared a program in which effective doses were reduced equally (from 10 to 7 mSv) across all scans with programs in which dose reduction was age dependent. For each program, we projected lethal cancers averted, life expectancy gained, and average institutional dose achieved. Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate uncertainty in projections.
resultsThe analysis's age distribution drew from 20,979 CT scans; 39% were from patients 65 years old and older. To illustrate trends yielded, if all patients in the hypothetical institution underwent 7-mSv (instead of 10-mSv) scans, we projected the maximum number of lethal cancers averted to be seven per 100,000 patients, and maximum life expectancy gained to be 0.26 days per patient, when averaged over the institution's population. When restricting dose reduction (from 10 to 7 mSv) to patients younger than 65 years, benefits were slightly lower (five lethal cancers averted per 100,000 patients and 0.22 days per patient gained); however, the average institutional dose was substantially higher (8.2 mSv). Although dose reduction in patients 65 years old and older accounted for only 16% of possible institutional life expectancy gains, this patient group contributed disproportionately (39%) to the institution's average dose.
conclusionInstitutional examination-specific dose metrics can be misleading, because the least-benefited patients may contribute disproportionately toward "improved" averages.
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.