ArticleMedicine2017
Assessment of radiation safety in cardiac CT angiography.
Article in Medicine, 2017. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the radiation dose and image quality of patients not receiving β-blockers for cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) with or without the optimization of electrocardiographic (ECG) pulsing window. The differences in patient characteristics are also characterized.Normal-weight and obese patients (n = 154) with heart rates between 65 and 80 beats per minutes (bpm) during the prospective axial scanning were enrolled retrospectively. The ECG pulsing windows were set at 50% to 75% (Group A) or 60% to 75% (Group B) of the R-R interval for patients with heart rate variability higher than or not exceeding ±5 bpm, respectively. The effective doses of individual patient were estimated from the dose length product of the CCTA scan. Two radiologists independently reviewed the images and applied a 4-point Likert scale for image quality assessment. The patients' characteristics were compared along with the patients' effective doses between groups.The optimized pulsing window significantly reduced the average radiation dose for normal-weight and obese patients by 33% and 27%, respectively. The CCTA image quality of patients in Group A was not different overall from those obtained from Group B. Nondiabetic obese patients were more likely to be accepted for the use of the optimized pulsing window. Unlike obese patients, normal-weight patients revealed no characteristic difference between Groups A and B.This study indicates an equivalent efficacy of using optimized pulsing windows for reducing the radiation dose for patients without β-blocker administration between different body weight groups. Nevertheless, gender and diabetic status became prominent characteristics in the obese group when matching up with the optimized pulsing window.
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.