ArticlePloS one2021
Influence of the use of various imaging units and projections on the radiation dose received by children during chest digital radiography.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-05-09Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Author(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the impact of the use of different imaging units and projections on radiation dose and image quality during chest digital radiography (DR) in 3- and 4-year-old children.
methodsTwo hundred forty 3- and 4-year-old participants requiring chest DR were included; they were divided into three groups: supine anterior-posterior projection (APP), standing APP and standing posterior-anterior projection (PAP). Each group included 40 participants who were evaluated using the same imaging unit. The dose area product (DAP) and the entrance surface dose (ESD) were recorded after each exposure. The visual grading analysis score (VGAS) was used to evaluate image quality, and the longitudinal distance (LD) from the apex of the right lung to the apex of the right diaphragm was used to evaluate the inspiration extent.
resultsDAP and ESD were significantly lower in the standing PAP and APP groups than in the supine APP group (P<0.05), but LD was significantly higher in the standing PAP and APP groups than in the supine APP group (P<0.05). Additionally, the pulmonary field area was significantly higher for the standing PAP group than for the standing and supine APP groups (P<0.05). The correlations between ESD, DAP, and VGAS were positive (P<0.001), showing that larger ESD and DAP correspond to higher VGAS. The correlations between ESD, DAP, and body mass index (BMI) were also positive (P<0.05), indicating that higher BMI corresponds to larger ESD and DAP. Finally, no differences in DAP, ESD, VGAS, LD, pulmonary field area, or BMI were noted between males and females (P>0.05).
conclusionThe radiation dose to superficial organs may be lower with standing PAP than with standing APP during chest DR. Standing PAP should be selected for chest DR in 3- and 4-year-old children, as it may decrease the required radiation dose.
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.