ArticleRadiology and oncology2018
Comparison of anteroposterior and posteroanterior projection in lumbar spine radiography.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 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.
- Age-dependent evaluation of organ and effective doses in pediatric full-spine radiography: influence of anteroposterior and posteroanterior projection and copper filtration using Monte Carlo simulation.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Comparing the supine and erect pelvis radiographic examinations: an evaluation of anatomy, image quality and radiation dose.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Lumbar spine radiographs - is it time for widespread adoption of posteroanterior projection?The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The aim of the study was to compare patient radiation dose and image quality in planar lumbar spine radiography using the PA and AP projection in a large variety of patients of both sexes and different sizes. Patients and methods In the first phase data of image field size, DAP, effective dose and image quality were gathered for AP and PA projection in lumbar spine imaging of anthropomorphic phantom. In the second phase, data of BMI, image field size, diameter of the patient's abdomen, DAP, effective dose and image quality were gathered for 100 patients of both sexes who were referred to lumbar spine radiography. The patients were divided into two groups of 50 patients, one of which was imaged using the AP projection while the other the PA projection. Results The study on the phantom showed no statistically significant difference in image field size, DAP and image quality. However, the calculated effective dose in the PA projection was 25% lower compared to AP projection (p =0.008). Measurements on the patients showed no statistically significant difference between the BMI and the image field size. In the PA projection, the thickness of abdomen was 10% (p < 10-3) lower, DAP 27% lower (p = 0.009) and the effective dose 53% (p < 10-3) lower than in AP projection. There was no statistically significant difference in image quality between the AP and the PA projection. Conclusions The study results support the use of the PA projection as the preferred method of choice in planar lumbar spine radiography.
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.