ArticleLa Radiologia medica2019
Patient centring and scan length: how inaccurate practice impacts on radiation dose in CT colonography (CTC).
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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.
- Mapping the Landscape of Over-Scanning in CT Imaging: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Review
- Estimation and comparison of the effective dose and lifetime attributable risk of thyroid cancer between males and females in routine head computed tomography scans: a multicentre study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Large Bowel Ischemia/Infarction: How to Recognize It and Make Differential Diagnosis? A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Editorial from guest editors current Euratom legislation (DE 59/2013): new patient management in radiation protection.La Radiologia medica · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to acknowledge errors in patients positioning in CT colonography (CTC) and their effect in radiation exposure. MATERIALS AND
methodsCTC studies of a total of 199 patients coming from two different referral hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Two parameters have been considered for the analysis: patient position in relation to gantry isocentre and scan length related to the area of interest. CTDI vol and DLP were extracted for each patient. In order to evaluate the estimated effective total dose and the dose to various organs, we used the CT-EXPO
resultsAverage value of the patients' position is found to be below the isocentre for 48 ± 25 mm and 29 ± 27 mm in the prone and supine position. It was observed that the increase in CTDI and DLP values for patients in Group 1, due to the inaccurate positioning, was estimated at about 30% and 20% for prone and supine position, respectively, while in Group 2, a decrease in CTDI and DLP values was estimated at about 16% and 18% for prone and supine position, respectively, due to an average position above isocentre. A dose increase ranging from 4 up to 13% was calculated with increasing the over-scanned region below anal orifice.
conclusionRadiographers and radiologists need to be aware of dose variation and noise effects on vertical positioning and over-scanning. More accurate training need to be achieved even so when examination protocol varies from general practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30848421What 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.