ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Multicentre survey on patient dose in paediatric imaging and proposal for updated diagnostic reference levels for France. Part 2: plain radiography and diagnostic fluoroscopy.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- ACPSEM guideline: recommendations for a fluoroscopic system quality assurance program.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Radiographic imaging in pediatric suspected foreign body ingestion: potential for dose reduction through collimation and exposure strategies.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic reference level curves for paediatric fluoroscopic imaging in the Netherlands.European radiology · 2026Article
- Paediatric diagnostic reference levels for common radiological examinations using the European guidelines.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Use of weight-based vs age-based groupings in the study of typical values of air kerma area product (PThe British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Development of image quality related reference doses called acceptable quality doses (AQD) in paediatric CT exams in Qatar.European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report on a dose survey conducted by the French societies of radiology and paediatric imaging (SFR and SFIPP) and the French public service expert in nuclear and radiological risks (IRSN), and to suggest new diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for paediatric plain radiography and diagnostic fluoroscopy.
methodsDose reports concerning four radiography procedures and three diagnostic fluoroscopy procedures performed in 2015-2016 on children aged 0-15 years were collected from 16 imaging departments on a voluntary basis. Air kerma-area product (P
resultsResults from 2249 radiography examinations and 1235 diagnostic fluoroscopy procedures were obtained. A noticeable variability in patient exposure between facilities was observed in diagnostic fluoroscopy and to a lesser extent in plain radiography. DRLs are proposed for each procedure and each age group.
conclusionsThis study showed that the applicable national DRLs in plain radiography were obsolete and its results have been recently used by the French authorities to update them. In diagnostic fluoroscopy, large differences of doses were observed, even among departments accustomed to paediatric procedures. The new national DRLs will be useful for optimising diagnostic practice. KEY POINTS: • New national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are proposed for several paediatric procedures in plain radiography and diagnostic fluoroscopy. • Even between departments accustomed to paediatric procedures, substantial differences of practice were observed, especially in diagnostic fluoroscopy.
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.