Trial reportMedicine2020
Image quality and clinical usefulness of automatic tube current modulation technology in female chest computed tomography screening.
Trial report in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study was aimed to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose during female chest computed tomography (CT) screening using organ-based tube current modulation technology X-ray combined applications to reduce exposure (XCARE).Five hundred sixty female individuals undergoing chest CT scan were prospectively enrolled and divided into 4 groups based on body mass index (BMI). Then they were randomly and equally divided into control and experimental subgroup and respectively accepted conventional low-dose and XCARE technology spiral CT scan with same parameters. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. The quality of the images was evaluated by 2 radiologists using a 5-point scale.Among experimental subgroups of the 4 BMI groups, Signal-to-noise ratios, CT dose index of volume, dose-length product, effective dose, and contrast-to-noise ratio all displayed significant differences, as well as in control subgroups (P < .001). Both the experimental and control subgroups showed an increasing trend in radiation dose with the increasing of BMI. Parameters of image quality and radiation dose displayed no significant differences between control and experimental subgroups in the 4 groups. In multiple linear regression analysis, age and scanning protocol were not associated with radiation dose (P > .05), while BMI was significantly associated with increased CT dose index of volume (P < .05). The display of the lesions for the patients in the control and experimental subgroups of the 4 groups with different BMIs exhibited no statistically significant difference.The same image quality and radiation dose can be obtained using XCARE technology compared to conventional chest CT scans, which can be used regularly in female patients.Advances in knowledge: Using automatic tube current modulation technology to reduce exposure in breast. In this study, we sought a radiation protection method for sensitive tissue in chest CT screening.
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.