Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29417159›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2018

[Digital volume tomography : Dedicated scanner and cone beam CT with C‑arm systems].

M Fiebich, D Weber

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [The quiet evolution].Der Radiologe · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M FiebichInstitut für Medizinische Physik und Strahlenschutz, Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Wiesenstr. 14, 35390, Gießen, Deutschland. Martin.Fiebich@kmub.thm.de.
D WeberDZD - Deutsche Zentrum für Dentaldiagnostik, Frankfurt a. M., Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

clinical/methodical issueDigital volume tomography (DVT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CT) with C‑arm systems have become established three-dimensional imaging systems as an alternative to CT in some application areas. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL

methodsThe technology of the systems is well developed so that they have become a competing method to CT imaging in terms of image quality and radiation exposure. PERFORMANCE: An advantage is the better spatial resolution, preferably with dedicated scanner systems, especially in the z direction. The radiation exposure of CT, cone beam CT and DVT are comparable, if the exposure parameter in CT imaging can be adjusted to the lower exposure levels. ACHIEVEMENTS: Advantages of these systems are that they can be used for imaging in a better workflow or to acquire images under conditions not possible in CT, e. g. imaging under stress in orthopedics or to take images in the corona technique with a horizontal gantry in cone-beam CT mammography PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The use of three-dimensional imaging is becoming more frequent and will replace planar radiography in additional clinical situations. The three-dimensional imaging without superpositioning of structures has advantages in the visibility of structures and the spatial relation to other organs and structures. In guidelines and recommendations, the number of recommendations given for the use of three-dimensional imaging is increasing. This leads to a small increase in the radiation exposure of patients, a trend which is reflected in the annual reports of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageCone beam CTImage qualityQuality assuranceRadiation exposureThree-dimensional imaging

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.