ArticleRadiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993)2023
Is it necessary to define new diagnostic reference levels during pandemics like the Covid19-?
Article in Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 and cancer risk arising from ionizing radiation exposure through CT scans: a cross-sectional study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Enhancing cancer stage prediction through hybrid deep neural networks: a comparative study.Frontiers in big data · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Cavitary Lung Lesions on CT Scan of COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2024Article
- Classification of cancer cells and gene selection based on microarray data using MOPSO algorithm.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study intended to assess the dose length product (DLP), effective cumulative radiation dose (E.D.), and additional cancer risk (ACR) due to a chest CT scan to detect or follow up the Covid-19 disease in four university-affiliated hospitals that used different imaging protocols. Indeed, this study aimed to examine the differences in decision-making between different imaging centers in choosing chest CT imaging protocols during the pandemic, and to assess whether a new diagnostic reference level (DRL) is needed in pandemic situations. Methods: This retrospective study assessed the E.D. of all chest imagings for Covid-19 for six months in four different hospitals in our country. Imaging parameters and DLP (mGy.cm) were recorded. The E.D.s and ACRs from chest CT scans were calculated using an online calculator. Results: Thousand-six hundred patients were included in the study. The mean cumulative dose due to chest CT was 3.97 mSv which might cause 2.59 × 10 Conclusions: The variety of mean E.D.s shows that different hospitals used different imaging protocols. Since there is no defined DRL in the pandemic, some centers use routine protocols, and others try to reduce the dose but insufficiently.In pandemics such as Covid-19, when CT scan is used for screening or follow-up, DLPs can be significantly lower than in normal situations. Therefore, international regularized organizations such as the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) or the international commission on radiological protection (IRCP) should provide new DRL ranges.
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.