Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36201315›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Direct measurement of CTDI

Kyle D DePew, Robert C Boggs, Michael V Yester, Gary T Barnes

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparing log file to measurement-based patient-specific quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023
    Article
  4. Direct measurement of CTDIJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyle D DePewDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Robert C BoggsDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Michael V YesterDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Gary T BarnesDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMedical physics computed tomography (CT) practice involves measurements to determine CTDI

methodsThe body and head CTDI phantoms were supported on the gantry shroud with brackets attached to the phantom. The phantom is above the tabletop and remains stationary during helical scans as the table moves beneath the phantom. With the phantom stationary, the CTDI

resultsFor both the head and body CTDI phantom the agreement between the axial and helical CTDI

conclusionsBody and head CTDI

Indexed as

Tomography, Spiral ComputedTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageRadionuclide Imagingcomputed tomographyCTDICTDIw helical acquisition

Identifiers

PMID36201315
PMCPMC9680572
OpenAlexW4302362482

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.