ArticlePediatric radiology2019
Radiation dose monitoring in pediatric fluoroscopy: comparison of fluoroscopy time and dose-area product thresholds for identifying high-exposure cases.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Voiding cystourethrography : Indications, fluoroscopy technique and radiation protection].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Ultra-mini-PCNL using the urological Dyna-CT in small infants: a single-center experience.International urology and nephrology · 2022Article
- Radiation exposure during proximal femoral nailing: Traction table versus conventional table.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Article
- The value of saline-aided ultrasound in diagnosing congenital duodenal obstruction.Pediatric surgery international · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluoroscopy time has been used as a surrogate for radiation dose monitoring in pediatric fluoroscopy; however it does not account for factors such as magnification or collimation. Dose-area product (DAP) is a more accurate measure of radiation exposure but its dependence on patient weight and body-part thickness is a challenge in children of varying ages.
objectiveTo determine whether fluoroscopy time and DAP produce concurrent results when they are used to identify high-exposure cases, and to establish radiation dose thresholds for our institution. MATERIALS AND
methodsDuring a 2-year period we prospectively monitored pediatric fluoroscopy studies performed at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore. We recorded study type, fluoroscopy time, DAP, patient age, weight and height. We then calculated 90th percentile fluoroscopy time and DAP thresholds for weight and age.
resultsWe evaluated 1,011 cases (453 upper gastrointestinal [UGI] series, 266 voiding cystourethrograms [VCUGs], 120 contrast enemas, 108 speech studies, and 64 esophagrams). Fluoroscopy time demonstrated moderate correlation with DAP (r
conclusionThe limited correlation of fluoroscopy time with DAP suggests these methods are not equivalent for dose monitoring. However, the strong correlation of DAP with patient weight and age presents a challenge for establishing DAP thresholds in children, who range widely in size. Despite controlling for weight or age, there was limited overlap of cases exceeding the 90th percentile threshold for fluoroscopy time and DAP. This further reinforces the non-overlapping outcome of these two methods and indicates that fluoroscopy time might be inadequate for dose monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30631913What 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.