ArticleLa Radiologia medica2018
Organ doses and lifetime attributable risk evaluations for scoliosis examinations of adolescent patients with the EOS imaging system.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- ASSESSMENT OF PCXMC MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS IN SLOT-SCANNING-BASED EXAMINATIONS: COMPARISON WITH IN-PHANTOM THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2023Article
- Technical evaluation of a clinical, bi-planar, digital and upright X-ray imaging unit.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
- Equivalent Dose and Risk of Exposure Induced Cancer Death of Different Organs due to Various Image Techniques of EOS Imaging System.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2021Article
- Dose, image quality and spine modeling assessment of biplanar EOS micro-dose radiographs for the follow-up of in-brace adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Article
- Are Restrictive Medical Radiation Imaging Campaigns Misguided? It Seems So: A Case Example of the American Chiropractic Association's Adoption of "Choosing Wisely".Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this work is to evaluate organ doses and lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence and mortality in scoliosis examinations of adolescent patients performed with EOS imaging system, in order to optimize patient dose and protocols.
methodsAn anthropomorphic phantom of a normal patient, with thermoluminescent dosimeters in correspondence with the main organs at risk, was imaged with both EOS and computed radiography (CR). For each modality, effective dose was calculated from the measured organ doses. Lifetime attributable risk was computed accordingly to the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) and Public Health England (HPA) publications.
resultsExcept for testes and eyes, which were excluded from the scan in CR protocol, for all the other organs the doses delivered with CR examination were higher than these delivered by EOS system. The effective dose in EOS examination (0.43 ± 0.04 mSv) is about two times less than the dose in computed radiography with anti-scatter grid examination (0.87 ± 0.09 mSv), and, consequently, also the cancer probability is lower (5.4 vs 9.7 number of any cancers induction cases per 100,000 person examined, for a 20-year-old male patient).
conclusionsThe EOS system is efficient in limiting patient dose. The shielding of testes and the exclusion of eyes from the scan could allow to further reduce the dose.
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.