Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36333494›Full record

ReviewPediatric radiology2023

Paediatric CT made easy.

Eszter Nagy, Sebastian Tschauner, Clemens Schramek, Erich Sorantin

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Is cross-sectional imaging necessary for fractures of the distal lower leg in children and adolescents: results of a nationwide survey.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Eszter NagyDivision of Paediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 34, 8036, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7080-5996
Sebastian TschaunerDivision of Paediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 34, 8036, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7873-9839
Clemens SchramekDivision of Paediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 34, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Erich SorantinDivision of Paediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 34, 8036, Graz, Austria. erich.sorantin@medunigraz.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2119-5359

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paediatric computed tomography (CT) imaging has always been associated with challenges. Although the technical background of CT imaging is complex, it is worth considering the baseline aspects of radiation exposure to prevent unwanted excess radiation in paediatric patients. In this review, we discuss the most relevant factors influencing radiation exposure, and provide a simplified and practical approach to optimise paediatric CT.

Indexed as

Radiation ExposureTomography, X-Ray ComputedChildHumansRadiation DosageALARAChildrenComputed tomographyImage GentlyImagingRadiation protection

Identifiers

PMID36333494
PMCPMC10027642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read10
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.