Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34866159›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2022

Reference phantom selection in pediatric computed tomography using data from a large, multicenter registry.

Philip W Chu, Sophronia Yu, Yifei Wang, J Anthony Seibert, Luisa F Cervantes, Nima Kasraie, Cameron A Chu, Rebecca Smith-Bindman

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Philip W ChuDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th St., Box 0560, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Sophronia YuChan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Yifei WangDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th St., Box 0560, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
J Anthony SeibertDepartment of Radiology, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Luisa F CervantesDepartment of Radiology, Nicklaus Children's Hospital, Miami, FL, USA.
Nima KasraieDepartment of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Cameron A ChuDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th St., Box 0560, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Rebecca Smith-BindmanDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th St., Box 0560, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. Rebecca.Smith-Bindman@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1972-639X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiation dose metrics vary by the calibration reference phantom used to report doses. By convention, 16-cm diameter cylindrical polymethyl-methacyrlate phantoms are used for head imaging and 32-cm diameter phantoms are used for body imaging in adults. Actual usage patterns in children remain under-documented.

objectiveThis study uses the University of California San Francisco International CT Dose Registry to describe phantom selection in children by patient age, body region and scanner manufacturer, and the consequent impact on radiation doses. MATERIALS AND

methodsFor 106,837 pediatric computed tomography (CT) exams collected between Jan. 1, 2015, and Nov. 2, 2020, in children up to 17 years of age from 118 hospitals and imaging facilities, we describe reference phantom use patterns by body region, age and manufacturer, and median and 75th-percentile dose-length product (DLP) and volume CT dose index (CTDI

resultsThere was relatively consistent phantom selection by body region. Overall, 98.0% of brain and skull examinations referenced 16-cm phantoms, and 95.7% of chest, 94.4% of abdomen and 100% of cervical-spine examinations referenced 32-cm phantoms. Only GE deviated from this practice, reporting chest and abdomen scans using 16-cm phantoms with some frequency in children up to 10 years of age. DLP and CTDI

conclusionREFERENCE PHANTOM SELECTION IS HIGHLY CONSISTENT, WITH A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ABDOMEN AND CHEST SCANS (~5%) USING 16-CM PHANTOMS IN YOUNGER CHILDREN, WHICH PRODUCES DLP VALUES APPROXIMATELY TWICE AS HIGH AS EXAMS REFERENCED TO 32-CM PHANTOMS.

Indexed as

ThoraxTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultChildHumansPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageRegistriesChildrenComputed tomographyPhantomRadiation doseReference phantomRegistry

Identifiers

PMID34866159
PMCPMC8857172

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.