ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Experiences of using a commercial dose management system (GE DoseWatch) for CT examinations.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of manually populated radiology information system digital radiographic data with electronic dose management systems.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Automatic calculation of patient size metrics in computed tomography: What level of computational accuracy do we need?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the use of a commercial dose management system (GE DoseWatch; GEMS, Milwaukee, WI) for CT dose management for six common CT examinations.
methodsData were acquired over several months using GE DoseWatch for six common CT examinations on three CT scanners. The dose length product (DLP) was taken as the dose indicator. The data were analysed using four different filtering methods: study description, the National Interim Clinical Imaging Procedure code, protocol name and a more detailed filtering method (the reference data set). The filtering methods were compared using an analysis of variance and multiple comparison technique. The different scanners were compared using the reference data set.
resultsIt was found that integrating DoseWatch with the radiology information system provided improved results compared with using the study description. Filtering by study description was found to be a poor indicator of the mean dose for all three scanners and consistently overestimated (p < 0.05) the head and thorax-abdo-pelvis mean DLP values, despite the large sample sizes. Filtering by the National Interim Clinical Imaging Procedure code or protocol name produced mean DLPs which were not statistically different from the reference data. The scanner intercomparison showed some significant differences between the scanners, usually due to different tube current modulation settings.
conclusionThe use of a commercial dose monitoring system provided fast and efficient filtering of substantial amounts of data. The filtering method affected the mean DLP value despite large sample sizes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Dose management systems are relatively new in the UK, and this article shares knowledge on the use of one system.
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.