ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Procedure for optimal implementation of automatic tube potential selection in pediatric CT to reduce radiation dose and improve workflow.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing multi-use syringeless and conventional single-use dual-syringe injectors in contrast-enhanced CT: efficiency, cost, and technologist satisfaction.European radiology · 2026Article
- Advancements in radiation dose reduction for pediatric CT head Imaging: A scoping review of emerging Technologies, Protocols, and optimization strategies.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Combined single- and dual-energy CT workflow for dose calculation in radiotherapy.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- EANM procedural recommendations for managing the paediatric patient in diagnostic nuclear medicine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is important to employ radiation dose reduction techniques in pediatric computed tomography (CT) to reduce potential risks of radiation-induced malignancy. Automatic tube potential (kV) selection tools have been developed and become available on many CT scanners, which select the optimum kV based on the patient size and clinical task to improve the radiation dose efficiency. However, its use in pediatric CT has been mostly empirical, following manufacturer's default recommendation without solid demonstration for quality improvement. This study aimed to implement an automatic tube potential tool (CAREkV, Siemens Healthcare) into routine pediatric CT practice, using the "Plan-Do-Study-Act" quality improvement process, in place of an existing kV/mAs technique chart. The design of this quality improvement project involved Plan-Do-Study-Act stages. Plan and Do stages identified the criteria for optimal automatic kV selection; a range of phantoms representing typical pediatric groups were scanned on a dual-source 128-slice scanner using a fast-pitch scanning mode. The identified CAREkV settings were implemented into the CT protocol and evaluated after a 6-month period. In the Study stage, an objective evaluation of the image metrics and radiation dose for two similar patient cohorts using CAREkV and the technique-chart, respectively, were compared. The kV selected, image quality and radiation dose determined by CAREkV were comparable to those obtained while using the technique-chart. The CAREkV was successfully implemented into our pediatric abdominopelvic CT practice. By utilizing the "PDSA" process optimal image quality and radiation dose reduction were achieved with an automatic kV selection tool to improve CT workflow.
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.