ArticlePloS one2019
Effect of using immobilization device in fluoroscopic study in pediatric patient: Focused on radiation dose reduction in voiding cystourethrogram.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo prove objective effect of using mechanical device for immobilization of pediatric patient during voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) compare immobilization by hand-holding.
methodsThis study included 77 patients, who underwent VCUG in our center from April to October 2017, who had a clinically suspicious urinary tract infection. Patients were classified into one of two groups based on whether examination was done before (Group A) or after (Group B) adaptation of immobilization device. Patient-related data, image quality related score and dose-related data were collected and compared between two groups.
resultsGroup A included 36 patients and group B included 41. Patient related data including mean age, sex, body weight and height didn't show significant difference between two groups (p > 0.05 for all). Among the image quality scoring, overall image quality, motion artifact, showed significant difference between two groups with improved inadequate timing and centering after adaptation of immobilization device. Dose related data showed significantly decreased shot number, mean fluoroscopic time with decreased mean dose area product (DAP) value and effective dose after adaptation of immobilization device (p < 0.05 for all).
conclusionAdaptation of immobilization device can improve overall image quality with decreased motion artifact and improved centering and timing with even shot number, mean fluoroscopic time with decreased mean DAP value and effective dose.
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.