SynthesisSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultra-low-dose CT in extremity fracture detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Emergency radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Feasibility of AI-Denoised Ultra-Low-Dose CT for Detection of Acute Pelvic and Hip Fractures: A Pilot Multi-Reader Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic value of high-resolution ultrasonography and computed tomography in the diagnosis of nasal bone fracture.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) detection using artificial neural networks model based on the AO spine-DGOU osteoporotic fracture classification system.North American Spine Society journal · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT.
objectiveTo determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
methodsWe searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation.
resultsThe fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either.
conclusionCT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database.
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.