Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34722795›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2021

Flat-panel conebeam CT in the clinic: history and current state.

Rebecca Fahrig, David A Jaffray, Ioannis Sechopoulos, J Webster Stayman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. [A method for sensitivity analysis of deviation factor for geometric correction of cone-beam CT system].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Special Section Guest Editorial: Computed tomography (CT) at 50 years.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Rebecca FahrigInnovation, Advanced Therapies, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.
David A JaffrayMD Anderson Cancer Center, Departments of Radiation Physics and Imaging Physics, Houston, Texas, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7378-7543
Ioannis SechopoulosRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9615-8205
J Webster StaymanJohns Hopkins University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4358-378X
Johns Hopkins University · USSiemens Healthcare (Germany) · DEThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research into conebeam CT concepts began as soon as the first clinical single-slice CT scanner was conceived. Early implementations of conebeam CT in the 1980s focused on high-contrast applications where concurrent high resolution (

Indexed as

breast CTC-arm angiographyconebeam CTdental conebeam CTdigital flat panelextremity imagingflat-panel CTimage-guided radiation therapyinterventional radiology

Identifiers

PMID34722795
PMCPMC8553266
OpenAlexW3209589623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.