ArticleBJR open2023
Response evaluation of two commercial thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) against different parameters.
Article in BJR open, 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.
- Impact of Regeneration on the Dosimetric Properties of LiF:Mg,Cu,P (MCP-N) Detectors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessment of rectal dose with thermoluminescent in vivo dosimetry in high-dose-rate cobalt-60 intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer: A two-arm cohort study using orthogonal images planning.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2025Article
- Fabrication, Structural Characterization, and Photon Attenuation Efficiency Investigation of Polymer-Based Composites.Polymers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: It is essential to study the dosimetric performance and reliability of personal dosimeters. This study examines and compares the responses of two commercial thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), the TLD-100 and the MTS-N. Methods: We compared the two TLDs to various parameters such as energy dependence, linearity, homogeneity, reproducibility, light sensitivity (zero point), angular dependence, and temperature effects using the IEC 61066 standard. Results: The results acquired showed that both TLD materials show linear behavior as indicated by the quality of the fit. In addition, the angular dependence results for both detectors show that all dose responses are within the range of acceptable values. However, the TLD-100 outperformed the MTS-N in terms of light sensitivity reproducibility for all detectors together, while the MTS-N outperforms the TLD-100 for each detector independently and that showed TLD-100 has more stability than MTS-N. The MTS-N shows better batch homogeneity (10.84%) than TLD-100 (13.65%). The effect of temperature in signal loss was clearer at higher temperature 65°C and it was however below ±30%. Conclusions: The overall results for dosimetric properties determined in terms of dose equivalents for all combinations of detectors are satisfactory. The MTS-N cards have better results in the energy dependence, angular dependency, batch homogeneity and less signal fading, whereas the TLD-100 cards are less sensitive to light and more reproducible. Advances in knowledge: Although previous studies showed several types of comparisons between TLDs, they have used limited parameters and different data analysis. This study has dealt with more comprehensive characterization methods and examinations combining TLD-100 and MTS-N cards.
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.