Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35460347›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2022

In vitro measurements of radiation exposure with different modalities (computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography) for imaging the petrous bone with a pediatric anthropomorphic phantom.

Beatrice Steiniger, Ursula Lechel, Jürgen R Reichenbach, Martin Fiebich, Rene Aschenbach, Alexander Schegerer, Matthias Waginger, Anelyia Bobeva, Ulf Teichgräber, Hans-Joachim Mentzel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Angular Insertion Depth for Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Analysis on Precision of CT, MRI, and x-Ray.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Beatrice SteinigerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, Jena, 07747, Germany. Beatrice.Steiniger@med.uni-jena.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8940-8448
Ursula LechelMB3 External and Internal Dosimetry and Biokinetics, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany.
Jürgen R ReichenbachMedical Physics Group, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2640-0630
Martin FiebichDepartment LSE, Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Gießen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6596-8774
Rene AschenbachDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, Jena, 07747, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3775-0449
Alexander SchegererMB3 External and Internal Dosimetry and Biokinetics, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5165-191X
Matthias WagingerSection Pediatric Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Anelyia BobevaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, Jena, 07747, Germany.
Ulf TeichgräberDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, Jena, 07747, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4048-3938
Hans-Joachim MentzelSection Pediatric Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Jena University Hospital · DEFederal Office for Radiation Protection · DETechnische Hochschule Mittelhessen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious imaging modalities, such as multi-detector computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT are commonly used in infants for the diagnosis of hearing loss and surgical planning of implantation hearing aid devices, with differing results.

objectiveWe compared three different imaging modalities available in our institution, including a high-class CT scanner, a mid-class CT scanner and an angiography system with a cone beam CT option, for image quality and radiation exposure in a phantom study. MATERIALS AND

methodsWhile scanning an anthropomorphic phantom imitating a 1-year-old child with vendor-provided routine protocols, organ doses, surface doses and effective doses were determined for these three modalities with thermoluminescent dosimeters. The image quality was evaluated using the signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) and the spatial resolution of a line-pair insert in the phantom head. The dose efficiency, defined as the ratio of SDNR and effective dose, was also compared.

resultsThe organ and surface doses were lowest with the high-class CT protocol, but the image quality was the worst. Image quality was best with the cone beam CT protocol, which, however, had the highest radiation exposure in this study, whereas the mid-class CT was in between.

conclusionBased on our results, high-end CT should be used for surgical planning because it has the lowest dose, while the image quality is still sufficient for this purpose. However, if highest image quality is needed and required, e.g., by ENT surgeons, the other modalities should be considered.

Indexed as

Petrous BoneRadiation ExposureChildCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansInfantPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray ComputedChildrenCochlear implantationComputed tomographyCone beam computed tomographyPetrous boneRadiation exposure

Identifiers

PMID35460347
PMCPMC9107409
OpenAlexW4224309485

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.