ArticleTexas Heart Institute journal2022
Radiation Doses in Patients Undergoing Computed Tomographic Coronary Artery Calcium Evaluation With a 64-Slice Scanner Versus a 256-Slice Scanner.
Article in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomographic coronary artery calcium scanning enables cardiovascular risk stratification; however, exposing patients to high radiation levels is an ongoing concern. New-generation computed tomographic systems use lower radiation doses than older systems do. To quantify comparative doses of radiation exposure, we prospectively acquired images from 220 patients with use of a 64-slice GE LightSpeed VCT scanner (control group, n=110) and a 256-slice GE Revolution scanner (study group, n=110). The groups were matched for age, sex, and body mass index; statistical analysis included t tests and linear regression. The mean dose-length product was 21% lower in the study group than in the control group (60.2 ± 27 vs 75.9 ± 22.6 mGy·cm; P <0.001) and also in each body mass index subgroup. Similarly, the mean effective radiation dose was 21% lower in the study group (0.84 ± 0.38 vs 1.06 ± 0.32 mSv) and lower in each weight subgroup. After adjustment for sex, women in the study group had a lower dose-length product (50.4 ± 23.4 vs 64.7 ± 27.6 mGy·cm) than men did and received a lower effective dose (0.7 ± 0.32 vs 0.9 ± 0.38 mSv) (P=0.009). As body mass index and waist circumference increased, so did doses for both scanners. Our study group was exposed to radiation doses lower than the previously determined standard of 1 mSv, even after adjustment for body mass index and waist circumference. In 256-slice scanning for coronary artery calcium, radiation doses are now similar to those in lung cancer screening and mammography.
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.