ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2022
Using an Assumed Lung Mass Inaccurately Estimates the Lung Absorbed Dose in Patients Undergoing Hepatic
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- MIRD Pamphlet No. 29: MIRDy90-AJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleCurrently, the estimated absorbed radiation dose to the lung in
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 68 patients who had undergone
resultsPatient-specific lung masses were significantly different from the generic 1 kg when compared individually for each patient (p < 0.0001). Median individualized lung mass was 0.71 (IQR: 0.59, 1.02) kg overall and was significantly different from the generic 1 kg lung mass for female patients [0.59 (0.50, 0.68) kg, (p < 0.0001)] but not for male patients [0.99 (0.71, 1.14) kg, (p = 0.24)]. Median estimated lung absorbed dose was 4.48 (2.38, 11.71) Gy using a patient-specific lung mass and 3.45 (1.81, 6.68) Gy when assuming a 1 kg lung mass for all patients. The estimated lung absorbed dose was significantly different using a patient-specific versus generic 1 kg lung mass when comparing the doses individually for each patient (p < 0.0001). The difference in the estimated lung absorbed dose between the patient-specific and generic 1 kg lung mass method was significant for female patients as a subgroup but not for male patients.
conclusionsThe current method of assuming a 1 kg lung mass for all patients inaccurately estimates the lung absorbed dose in LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Retrospective Study.
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.