ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016
A cross-sectional study of the radiation dose and image quality of X-ray equipment used in IVR.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fundamental study of digital subtraction angiography using dose characteristic analysis of different protocols in lower limb arterial disease.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Parameter optimisation for image acquisition and stacking in carbon dioxide digital subtraction angiography.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Effect of backscatter radiation on the occupational eye-lens dose.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel?Radiological physics and technology · 2022Review
- Radiation Eye Dose for Physicians in CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of novel X-ray protective eyewear in reducing the eye dose to interventional radiology physicians.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Reducing the Breast Cancer Risk and Radiation Dose of Radiography for Scoliosis in Children: A Phantom Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- An initial investigation of a wireless patient radiation dosimeter for use in interventional radiology.Radiological physics and technology · 2020Article
- Development of Novel Real-Time Radiation Systems Using 4-Channel Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- New real-time patient radiation dosimeter for use in radiofrequency catheter ablation.Journal of radiation research · 2019Observational
- Multibreath HyperpolarizedAcademic radiology · 2019Article
- Effectiveness of a novel real-time dosimeter in interventional radiology: a comparison of new and old radiation sensors.Radiological physics and technology · 2018Article
- Occupational eye dose in interventional cardiology procedures.Scientific reports · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are case reports of injuries caused by the radiation from interventional radiology (IVR) X-ray systems. Therefore, the management of radiation doses in IVR is important. However, no detailed report has evaluated image quality for a large number of IVR X-ray systems. As a result, it is unclear whether the image quality of the X-ray equipment currently used in IVR procedures is optimal. We compared the entrance surface doses and image quality of multiple IVR X-ray systems. This study was conducted in 2014 at 13 medical facilities using 18 IVR X-ray systems. We evaluated image quality and simultaneously measured the radiation dose. Entrance surface doses for fluoroscopy (duration, 1 min) and cineradiography (duration, 10 s) are measured using a 20-cm-thick acrylic plate and skin dose monitor. The image quality (such as spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability) of both fluoroscopy and cineradiography was evaluated using a QC phantom. For fluoroscopy, the average entrance surface dose using the 20-cm-thick acrylic plate was 13.9 (range 2.1-28.2) mGy/min. For cineradiography, the average entrance surface dose was 24.6 (range 5.1-49.3) mGy/10 s. We found positive correlations between radiation doses and image quality scores, in general, especially for fluoroscopy. The differences in surface dose among the 18 IVR X-ray systems were high (max/min, 9.7-fold for cineradiography; 13.4-fold for fluoroscopy). The differences in image quality scores (spatial resolution, low-contrast detectability, and dynamic range) were also very large. In general, there tended to be a correlation between radiation dose and image quality. Periodical measurements of the radiation dose and image quality of the X-ray equipment used for cineradiography and fluoroscopy in IVR are necessary. The need to minimize patient exposure requires that the dose be reduced to the minimum level that will generate an image with an acceptable degree of noise.
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.