ArticleClinical neuroradiology2024
Low Dose Pediatric CT Head Protocol using Iterative Reconstruction Techniques: A Comparison with Standard Dose Protocol.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Radiation Dose Reduction Studies in Pediatric Head CT.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Pooled it
- Development and validation of a novel three-dimensional patient-specific pediatric brain phantom for computed tomography neuroimaging research.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Advancements in radiation dose reduction for pediatric CT head Imaging: A scoping review of emerging Technologies, Protocols, and optimization strategies.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Deep learning image reconstruction technique for improving image quality and radiation dose reduction compared to iterative reconstruction technique in non-contrast CT head imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Radiation dose optimisation in paediatric head CT using attenuation-based auto prescription.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePediatric computed tomography (CT) head examination has also increased in recent years with the advancement in CT technology; however, children exposed to radiation at the youngest age are more vulnerable to the risks of radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate radiation dose and image quality of low dose pediatric CT head protocol compared to standard dose pediatric CT head protocol.
methodsThis was a prospective study. Group 1 included 73 patients aged < 1 year and 70 patients in the 1-5 years age group and had undergone CT head examination using the standard dose protocol. Group 2 included 31 patients aged < 1 year and 40 patients in the 1-5 years age group and had undergone CT head examination using the low dose protocol. The radiation dose was measured and image quality was assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.
resultsThere was a significant difference in radiation dose between the standard and low dose protocols (p > 0.05) with lower radiation dose for low dose group. The qualitative analysis did not show a significant difference between the standard and low dose protocols. The gray-white matter differentiation (GWMD), attenuation, contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) were higher in the low dose protocol compared to the standard dose with a significant difference (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe study concludes that a low dose protocol at 80 kV tube voltage/150 mAs tube current exposure time product/iterative reconstruction-iDose
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.