Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29987416›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Radiation dose reduction with frame rate conversion in X-ray fluoroscopic imaging systems with flat panel detector: basic study and clinical retrospective analysis.

Noriyuki Sakai, Katsuyuki Tabei, Jiro Sato, Toshikazu Imae, Yuichi Suzuki, Shigeharu Takenaka, Keiichi Yano, Osamu Abe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. How should radiation exposure be handled in fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures in the field of gastroenterology?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022
    Review
  3. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Noriyuki SakaiDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. noriyuki.sakai0602@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4034-5815
Katsuyuki TabeiDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Jiro SatoDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Toshikazu ImaeDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yuichi SuzukiDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Shigeharu TakenakaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Keiichi YanoDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Osamu AbeDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
University of Tokyo Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo (a) evaluate the interpolation frames of frame rate conversion (FRC) compared with fluoroscopic frames of conventional method, and (b) compare radiation dose and fluoroscopy time between various clinical examinations without and with FRC retrospectively.

methodsThis study consisted of a basic study and a clinical retrospective analysis. The radiation dosimetry, visual assessment and measurements of contrast to noise ratio were examined. Similarity between interpolation frames and fluoroscopic frames was evaluated using normalised cross-correlation values. In the clinical retrospective analysis approved by the institutional review board, we extracted 270 examinations performed without FRC (conventional group, 12.5 pulses/s) and with FRC (FRC group, 6.25 pulses/s) from 23 May to 31 December 2016. The fluoroscopy parameters and demographics of the two groups of the clinical examinations were compared. Statistical analyses were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Brunner-Munzel test and χ

resultsIn the basic study, the only significant difference was that the radiation dose of FRC was approximately half that of the conventional method in the same fluoroscopy time (p = .031). The interpolation frames of FRC were similar to the fluoroscopic frames of the conventional method. In the clinical retrospective analysis, the only significant difference was that FRC reduced the fluoroscopy dose by 48% and the total dose by 31% compared with the conventional method (p < .001). There was no significant difference in the others.

conclusionFRC significantly reduced the radiation dose without extending the fluoroscopy time and maintaining the image quality compared to the conventional method. KEY POINTS: • Although X-ray fluoroscopic techniques are widely used for various clinical purposes, X-ray fluoroscopic examinations have radiation risks. • Frame rate conversion is an image processing technique for radiation dose reduction. • Clinical retrospective analysis showed that FRC reduces radiation doses of patients.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildEquipment DesignFemaleFluoroscopyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedRadiation DosageRadiation InjuriesRetrospective StudiesComparative studyFluoroscopyRadiation dosageRetrospective studiesX-rays

Identifiers

PMID29987416
OpenAlexW2817345257

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.