ArticlePloS one2018
Automated tube voltage selection in pediatric non-contrast chest CT.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in radiation protection related to pediatric chest computed tomography examinations.World journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Optimizing image quality and minimizing radiation dose in pediatric abdominal multiphase contrast-enhanced computed tomography: a study on CARE kV and CARE Dose 4D.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- X-ray attenuation of bone, soft and adipose tissue in CT from 70 to 140 kV and comparison with 3D printable additive manufacturing materials.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern CT scanners provide automatic dose adjustment systems, which are promising options for reducing radiation dose in pediatric CT scans. Their impact on patient dose, however, has not been investigated sufficiently thus far.
objectiveTo evaluate automated tube voltage selection (ATVS) in combination with automated tube current modulation (ATCM) in non-contrast pediatric chest CT, with regard to the diagnostic image quality. MATERIALS AND
methodsThere were 160 non-contrast pediatric chest CT scans (8.7±5.4 years) analyzed retrospectively without and with ATVS. Correlations of volume CT Dose Index (CTDIvol) and effective diameter, with and without ATVS, were compared using Fisher's z-transformation. Image quality was assessed by mean signal-difference-to-noise ratios (SDNR) in the aorta and in the left main bronchus using the independent samples t-test. Two pediatric radiologists and a general radiologist rated overall subjective Image quality. Readers' agreement was assessed using weighted kappa coefficients. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.
resultsCTDIvol correlation with the effective diameter was r = 0.62 without and r = 0.80 with ATVS (CI: -0.04 to -0.60; p = 0.025). Mean SDNR was 10.88 without and 10.03 with ATVS (p = 0.0089). Readers' agreement improved with ATVS (weighted kappa between pediatric radiologists from 0.1 (0.03-0.16) to 0.27 (0.09-0.45) with ATVS; between general and each pediatric radiologist from 0.1 (0.06-0.14) to 0.12 (0.05-0.20), and from 0.22 (0.11-0.34) to 0.36 (0.24-0.49)).
conclusionATVS, combined with ATCM, results in a radiation dose reduction for pediatric non-contrast chest CT without a loss of diagnostic image quality and prevents errors in manual tube voltage setting, and thus protecting larger children against an unnecessarily high radiation exposure.
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.