ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
The effectiveness of 4DCT in children and adults: A pooled analysis.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Abstract
backgroundWhile four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) is extensively used in adults, reluctance remains to use 4DCT in children. Day-to-day (interfractional) variability and irregular respiration (intrafractional variability) have shown to be limiting factors of 4DCT effectiveness in adults. In order to evaluate 4DCT applicability in children, the purpose of this study is to quantify inter- and intrafractional variability of respiratory motion in children and adults. The pooled analysis enables a solid comparison to reveal if 4DCT application for planning purposes in children could be valid. METHODS/MATERIALS: We retrospectively included 90 patients (45 children and 45 adults), for whom the diaphragm was visible on abdominal/thoracic free-breathing cone beam CTs (480 pediatric, 524 adult CBCTs). For each CBCT, the cranial-caudal position of end-exhale and end-inhale positions of the right diaphragm dome were manually selected in the projection images. The difference in position between both phases defines the amplitude. Cycle time equaled inspiratory plus expiratory time. We analyzed the variability of the inter- and intrafractional respiratory-induced diaphragm motion.
resultsRanges of respiratory motion characteristics were large in both children and adults (amplitude: 4-17 vs 5-24 mm, cycle time 2.1-3.9 vs 2.7-6.5 s). The mean amplitude was slightly smaller in children than in adults (10.7 vs 12.3 mm; P = 0.06). Interfractional amplitude variability was statistically significantly smaller in children than in adults (1.4 vs 2.2 mm; P = 0.00). Mean cycle time was statistically significantly shorter in children (2.9 vs 3.6 s; P = 0.00). Additionally, intrafractional cycle time variability was statistically significantly smaller in children (0.5 vs 0.7 s; P = 0.00).
conclusionsOverall variability is smaller in children than in adults, indicating that respiratory motion is more regular in children than in adults. This implies that a single pretreatment 4DCT could be a good representation of daily respiratory motion in children and will be at least equally beneficial for planning purposes as it is in adults.
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.