ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Pulmonary perfusion by chest digital dynamic radiography: Comparison between breath-holding and deep-breathing acquisition.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep-Inspiration Breath-Hold Strategy Improves Image Quality of Transthoracic Lateral Shoulder Radiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An optimization method for hemi-diaphragm measurement of dynamic chest X-ray radiography during respiration based on graphics and diaphragm motion consistency criterion.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Investigation of diaphragmatic motion and projected lung area in diaphragm paralysis patients using dynamic chest radiography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Relationship Between Pulmonary Perfusion Via Chest Digital Dynamic Radiography System and Diffusing Capacity Test.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Retracted: Chest digital dynamic radiography to detect changes in human pulmonary perfusion in response to alveolar hypoxia.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2023Article
- Potential of dynamic chest radiography for preoperative evaluation of pleural adhesions.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Dynamic chest radiography: a state-of-the-art review.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- Characterisation of hemidiaphragm dysfunction using dynamic chest radiography: a pilot study.ERJ open research · 2022Article
- Novel pulmonary perfusion imaging using chest digital dynamic radiography for pulmonary artery sarcoma.Respirology case reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePulmonary perfusion is an important factor for gas exchange. Chest digital dynamic radiography (DDR) by the deep-breathing protocol can evaluate pulmonary perfusion in healthy subjects. However, respiratory artifacts may affect DDR in patients with respiratory diseases. We examined the feasibility of a breath-holding protocol and compared it with the deep-breathing protocol to reduce respiratory artifacts. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 42 consecutive patients with respiratory diseases (32 males; age, 68.6 ± 12.3 yr), including 21 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, underwent chest DDR through the breath-holding protocol and the deep-breathing protocol. Imaging success rate and exposure to radiation were compared. The correlation rate of temporal changes in each pixel value between the lung fields and left cardiac ventricles was analyzed.
resultsImaging success rate was higher with the breath-holding protocol vs the deep-breathing protocol (97% vs 69%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The entrance surface dose was lower with the breath-holding protocol (1.09 ± 0.20 vs 1.81 ± 0.08 mGy, respectively; P < 0.0001). The correlation rate was higher with the breath-holding protocol (right lung field, 41.7 ± 9.3%; left lung field, 44.2 ± 8.9% vs right lung field, 33.4 ± 6.6%; left lung field, 36.0 ± 7.1%, respectively; both lung fields, P < 0.0001). In the lower lung fields, the correlation rate was markedly different (right, 15.3% difference; left, 14.1% difference; both lung fields, P < 0.0001).
conclusionThe breath-holding protocol resulted in high imaging success rate among patients with respiratory diseases, yielding vivid images of pulmonary perfusion.
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.