ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Evaluation of radiation dose for inferior vena cava filter placement during pregnancy: A comparison of dosimetry and dose calculation software.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pregnancy, cancer, and radiation-a modern refresher.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Guideline
- Assessment of lens absorbed dose by radiological technologists during mobile X-ray radiography: a comparison between computed radiography and flat panel detector systems.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- 3D printing of realistic body phantoms: Comparison of measured and simulated organ doses on the example of a CT scan on a pregnant woman.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of radiation dose for inferior vena cava filter placement during pregnancy: A comparison of dosimetry and dose calculation software.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous medical conditions are associated with pregnancy in women, including pulmonary thromboembolism, which can be fatal. An effective treatment of this condition is the positioning of an inferior vena cava filter (IVC-F) under the guidance of X-ray imaging. However, this procedure involves the risk of high radiation exposure to pregnant women and fetuses. Moreover, there are no published reports comparing the values of fetal dose, received during IVC-F placement in pregnant women, determined using dose calculation software and actual measurements. To address this issue, we compared the fetal radiation dose and entrance surface dose (ESD) for pregnant women for gestation periods of 6 and 9 months based on software calculations and actual measurements. The ESD and fetal doses were estimated for a pregnant woman for gestation periods of 6 and 9 months during IVC-F placement. For actual measurements, one pregnant model phantom was constructed using an anthropomorphic phantom, and two custom-made different-sized abdomen phantoms were used to simulate pregnancy. The custom-made abdomen phantoms were constructed using polyurethane. For software calculations, the software utilized a set of anatomically realistic pregnant patient phantoms. The ESD estimated using the software was consistent with the measured ESD, but the fetal dose estimations were more complicated due to fetal positioning. During fetal dose evaluation using software calculations, the user must carefully consider how much of the fetal length is in the irradiation field to prevent underestimation or overestimation. Despite the errors, the software can assist the user in identifying the magnitude of the dose approaching critical limits.
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.