ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021
Comparing the supine and erect pelvis radiographic examinations: an evaluation of anatomy, image quality and radiation dose.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Pelvic Tilt and Rotation on Common Qualitative Acetabular Radiographic Markers: A Three-Dimensional Digitally Reconstructed Radiograph Analysis.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Deep learning for gender estimation using hand radiographs: a comparative evaluation of CNN models.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Article
- CORR Insights®: Is Quantitative Radiographic Measurement of Acetabular Version Reliable in Anteverted and Retroverted Hips?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 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
objectivesPelvis radiographs are usually acquired supine despite standing imaging reflecting functional anatomy. We compared supine and erect radiographic examinations for anatomical features, radiation dose and image quality.
methods60 patients underwent pelvis radiography in both supine and erect positions at the same examination appointment. Measures of body mass index and sagittal diameter were obtained. Images were evaluated using visual grading analysis and pelvic tilt was compared. Dose-area product values were recorded and inputted into the CalDose_X software to estimate effective dose (ED). The CalDose_X software allowed comparisons using data from the erect and supine sex-specific phantoms (MAX06 & FAX06).
resultsPatient sagittal diameter was greater on standing with an average 20.6% increase at the iliac crest (median 30.0, interquartile range [26.0 to 34.0] cm), in comparison to the supine position [24.0 (22.3 to 28.0) cm;
conclusionPatient diameter and pelvic tilt were altered on weightbearing. Erect images demonstrated an overall decrease in image quality with a higher radiation dose. Optimal acquisition parameters are required for erect pelvis radiography as the supine technique is not directly transferable.
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.