Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34760413›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Diagnostic Reference Levels for Common X-ray Procedures in Peru.

Andres Portocarrero Bonifaz, Caterina S Camarena Rodriguez, Ricardo Palma Esparza

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andres Portocarrero BonifazRadiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA.
Caterina S Camarena RodriguezControl de Calidad en Radiodiagnostico, QC Dose S.A.C, Lima, PER.
Ricardo Palma EsparzaControl de Calidad en Radiodiagnostico, QC Dose S.A.C, Lima, PER.
National Institute of Quality · PEUniversity of Louisville Hospital · USUniversity of Louisville Physicians · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for X-ray procedures have been established in many countries since 1996. In Peru, data from the literature are used as guidelines as DRLs research is limited. The objective of this study is to analyze the parameters and variables which are used in radiological techniques such as kV, mAs, and type of machine (conventional or digital); study the geographical distribution of radiological X-ray machines, and establish DRLs in Peru. Two radiological procedures were considered, general X-rays (fixed and mobile) and intraoral X-rays (fixed, mobile, and portable). An Unfors RaySafe Xi detector (Unfors RaySafe AB, Billdal, Sweden) was used; air kerma was measured at a source to image distance that varied depending on the procedure, and the entrance skin dose was subsequently calculated using the Arcal XLIX formalism. The data were collected over a period of three years (2015-2017). Only results from the last evaluation during this period were taken into consideration for each X-ray machine. DRLs were calculated at 0.21 mSv, and 0.25 mSv for posterior-anterior chest examinations in conventional and digital machines, respectively; 4.39 mSv and 6.01 mSv for conventional and digital antero-posterior lumbar spine examinations, respectively; and at 4.21 mSv for the dental intraoral procedure. The largest amount of X-ray machines is concentrated in the city of Lima. These results reflect the standard of practice in Peru.

Indexed as

diagnostic reference levelsdosedrlgeneral x-raysintraoral x-raysperuquality control

Identifiers

PMID34760413
PMCPMC8571906
OpenAlexW3203045067

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.