ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021
Establishing scanning protocols for a CT lung cancer screening trial in the UK.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary nodules: classification, biomarkers, signaling pathways, diseases, early diagnosis and management.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Towards optimized CT lung cancer screening scan protocols.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- CT acquisition protocols in lung cancer screening: implications for guideline development from a worldwide survey.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Evaluation of an in-use chest CT protocol in lung cancer screening - A single institutional study.Acta radiologica open · 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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a CT scanning protocol for lung cancer screening which achieved low radiation dose and a high level of objectively assessed image quality.
methodsAn anthropomorphic chest phantom and a commercially available lung screening image quality phantom were scanned on a series of scan protocols from a previous UK lung screening pilot and on an alternative protocol. The chest phantom scans were used to assess the CT dose metrics on community-based mobile CT scanners and comparisons were made with published recommended doses. Scans of the image quality phantom were objectively assessed against the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) recommendations. Protocol adjustments were made to ensure that the recommended dose and image quality levels were both achieved.
resultsThe alternative scan protocol yielded doses up to 72% lower than on the previously used protocols with a CTDIvol of 0.6mGy for the 55 kg equivalent phantom and 1.3mGy with an additional 6 cm of tissue equivalent material in place. Scans on the existing protocols failed on two of the QIBA image quality metrics (edge enhancement and 3D resolution aspect ratio). Following adjustments to the reconstruction parameters of the resulting image quality met all six QIBA recommendations. Radiologist review of phantom images with this scan protocol deemed them suitable for a lung screening trial.
conclusionsScan protocols yielding low radiation doses and high levels of objectively assessed image quality which meet published criteria can be established through the use of specific anthropomorphic and image quality phantoms, and are deliverable in community-based lung cancer screening. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Development of a standard methodology for establishing CT lung screening scanning protocolsUse of QIBA recommendations as objective image quality metricsStandardised lung phantoms are essential tools for setting up lung screening protocols.
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.