ArticleJournal of imaging2022
The Impacts of Vertical Off-Centring, Localiser Direction, Phantom Positioning and Tube Voltage on CT Number Accuracy: An Experimental Study.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Off-Centre Positioning, Scan Direction, and Localiser Projection Angle on Organ-Specific Radiation Doses in Low-Dose Chest CT: A Simulation Study Across Four Scanner Models.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study investigates the effects of vertical off-centring, localiser direction, tube voltage, and phantom positioning (supine and prone) on computed tomography (CT) numbers and radiation dose. Methods: An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned using a Discovery CT750 HD—128 slice (GE Healthcare) scanner at different tube voltages (80, 120, and 140 kVp). Images employing 0° and 180° localisers were acquired in supine and prone positions for each vertical off-centring (±100, ±60, and ±30 mm from the iso-centre). CT numbers and displayed volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) were recorded. The relationship between dose variation and CT number was investigated. Results: The maximum changes in CT number between the two phantom positions as a function of vertical-off-centring were for the upper thorax 34 HU (0° localiser, 120 kVp), mid thorax 43 HU (180° localiser, 80 kVp), and for the abdominal section 31 HU (0° localiser, 80 kVp) in the prone position. A strong positive correlation was reported between the variation in dose and CT number (r = 0.969, p < 0.001); 95% CI (0.93, 0.99). Conclusions: Patient positioning demands an approach with a high degree of accuracy, especially in cases where clinical decisions depend on CT number accuracy for tissue lesion characterisation.
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.