ArticlePediatric radiology2021
Feasibility study of a novel portable digital radiography system modified for fluoroscopy in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2021. 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, 0 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA portable radiographic system capable of fluoroscopic imaging in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) potentially benefits critically ill neonates by eliminating the need to transport them to a fluoroscopy suite.
objectiveTo evaluate whether a portable bedside fluoroscopy system in the NICU can deliver comparable image quality at a similar dose rate to a standard system in a fluoroscopy suite. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn phase A, 20 patients <3 years of age and scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal series (upper GI) or voiding cystourethrograms (VCUG) in the radiology fluoroscopy suite were recruited to evaluate a portable fluoroscopic unit. A modified portable radiographic system with a cassette-sized detector and an in-room fluoroscopy system were sequentially used in the same examination. Four radiologists compared the image quality of 20 images from each system using the Radlex score (1-4) for five image quality attributes. The radiation dose rates for the portable and in-suite systems were collected. In phase B, fluoroscopy studies were performed in 5 neonates in the NICU and compared to the 20 previous neonatal studies performed in the department. Clinical workflow, examination time, fluoroscopy time, scattered radiation dose and patient radiation dose were evaluated.
resultsIn phase A, average dose rates for in-room and portable systems were equivalent, (0.322 mGy/min and 0.320 mGy/min, respectively). Reader-averaged Radlex scores for in-room and portable systems were statistically significantly greater (P<0.05) for all attributes on the portable system except for image contrast. In phase B, scattered radiation from the average fluoroscopy time (26 s) was equivalent to the scattered radiation of 2.6 portable neonatal chest radiographs. Procedure time and diagnostic quality were deemed equivalent. The average dose rate in the NICU with the portable system was 0.21 mGy/min compared to 0.29 mGy/min for the in-room system.
conclusionThe portable fluoroscopy unit is capable of providing comparable image quality at equivalent dose levels to an in-room system for neonates with minimal risks to the staff and other patients in the NICU.
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.