ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2023
Do radiographers collimate? A retrospective analysis of radiographic collimation of common musculoskeletal examinations at an adult trauma centre.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying optimal dose head CT acquisition techniques through cluster analysis from 904,209 scans.European radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Collimation and cropping in diagnostic radiography: How concerned are we?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCollimation of the primary beam is an important factor in radiography to reduce dose and improve image quality. The introduction of larger detector plates in direct digital radiography (DR) allows the exposed area to be calculated by removing cropping applied to the image. The aim of this study was to assess whether the exposed area was larger than a reference standard across five different projections on different body types, with the reference size being the corresponding cassette size used in traditional film/screen or computed radiography (CR).
methodA retrospective clinical audit of five common musculoskeletal radiographic projections (AP knee, AP shoulder, horizontal beam lateral hip, lateral cervical spine and lateral facial bones), of 359 patients was undertaken. The electronic cropping was removed from projections, and the superior-inferior, antero-posterior and medio-lateral collimation size was measured, depending on the projection. The two measurements were multiplied to give an exposed field of view area. The three measurements were compared with a reference standard, being the size of the corresponding cassette size used in the department on film/screen or computed radiography.
resultsFrom the five projections, 1071 measurements were analysed. 416 (38.8%) of these measurements were less than or equal to the agreed reference standard. 655 (61.2%) were greater than the agreed reference standard.
conclusionThe study demonstrates that the majority (61.2%) of the measurements taken were above the reference standard. This results in an increase in radiation dose to patients and detrimental impacts on image quality.
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.