ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2021
COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Typical and Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Chest and Abdomen Radiography Examinations in Dubai Health Sector.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Effects of body part thickness on low-contrast detail detection and radiation dose during adult chest radiography.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the challenges in comparing digital radiography (DR) systems from different vendors for various combinations of exposure factors in posterior-anterior hand radiographs. Image quality was evaluated for a range of tube voltages and tube current-time products using a technical contrast-detail (CDRAD) phantom and an anthropomorphic hand phantom. 900 technical CDRAD images were analysed providing quality figures of merit (IQFinv) and two experienced reporting radiographers using visual grading analysis (VGA) scored 108 anthropomorphic images. This study demonstrates the differences between the DR systems included. When compensating for variations in dose, Canon showed superior results for technical image quality and Fuji for visual image quality for a standard dose point at DR hand examination (ln(DAP) 1.1, 50 kV and 2.5 mAs).
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.