ArticleEuropean radiology2014
Effect of radiation dose level on the detectability of pulmonary nodules in chest tomosynthesis.
Article in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Breathing motion compensation in chest tomosynthesis: evaluation of the effect on image quality and presence of artifacts.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Comparison of digital tomosynthesis and computed tomography for lung nodule detection in SOS screening program.La Radiologia medica · 2017Article
- VISIBILITY OF STRUCTURES OF RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS WITH CYSTIC FIBROSIS IN CHEST TOMOSYNTHESIS: INFLUENCE OF ANATOMICAL LOCATION AND OBSERVER EXPERIENCE.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2016Article
- EFFECT OF RADIATION DOSE LEVEL ON ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF MANUAL SIZE MEASUREMENTS IN CHEST TOMOSYNTHESIS EVALUATED USING SIMULATED PULMONARY NODULES.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2016Article
- Evaluation of a new system for chest tomosynthesis: aspects of image quality of different protocols determined using an anthropomorphic phantom.The British journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the detectability of pulmonary nodules in chest tomosynthesis at reduced radiation dose levels.
methodsEighty-six patients were included in the study and were examined with tomosynthesis and computed tomography (CT). Artificial noise was added to simulate that the tomosynthesis images were acquired at dose levels corresponding to 12, 32, and 70% of the default setting effective dose (0.12 mSv). Three observers (with >20, >20 and three years of experience) read the tomosynthesis cases for presence of nodules in a free-response receiver operating characteristics (FROC) study. CT served as reference. Differences between dose levels were calculated using the jack-knife alternative FROC (JAFROC) figure of merit (FOM).
resultsThe JAFROC FOM was 0.45, 0.54, 0.55, and 0.54 for the 12, 32, 70, and 100% dose levels, respectively. The differences in FOM between the 12% dose level and the 32, 70, and 100% dose levels were 0.087 (p = 0.006), 0.099 (p = 0.003), and 0.093 (p = 0.004), respectively. Between higher dose levels, no significant differences were found.
conclusionsA substantial reduction from the default setting dose in chest tomosynthesis may be possible. In the present study, no statistically significant difference in detectability of pulmonary nodules was found when reducing the radiation dose to 32%. KEY POINTS: • A substantial radiation dose reduction in chest tomosynthesis may be possible. • Pulmonary nodule detectability remained unchanged at 32% of the effective dose. • Tomosynthesis might be performed at the dose of a lateral chest radiograph.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24792590What 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.