ArticleCureus2023
Decreasing Lens Irradiation on Brain Imaging: A Multi-CT Scanner Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical implications of lateral head mis-centering on eye lens dose in pediatric computed tomography examinations: a phantom study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
aimsCataracts, a leading global cause of blindness, are associated with ionising radiation exposure. This audit aimed to enhance lens exclusion during non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) scans at Newham University Hospital (NUH) using two CT scanners.
methodsA retrospective audit of non-contrast head CT scans at NUH excluded scans for trauma and imaging of orbital structures. A one-week audit in April 2023 assessed lens exclusion, compared to the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) standards. A total of 101 consecutive scans were analysed and 63 (62%) scans were included in the final study. Thirty-eight percent of the scans were excluded according to the exclusion criteria of head, neck and facial traumas, orbital infections and papilledema. Results were presented, followed by a three-month radiographer re-education period, emphasizing gantry tilt and patient positioning. A reaudit in August 2023 evaluated outcomes. For the reaudit, 183 consecutive scans were analysed, with 131 (72%) scans included in the final study and 52 (28%) scans excluded according to the same exclusion criteria as the first audit.
resultsLens exclusion in non-contrast head CT scans improved significantly from 0/63 (0%) compliance to 19/131 (14.50%) (p=0005) compliance with the standards. Variability in radiographer practices, 'near misses' and time constraints were identified as challenges. Staff turnover impacted compliance.
conclusionThis audit has shed light on a critical aspect of patient care in the field of radiology. This research underscores the importance of rigorous and standardised protocols in radiological procedures, particularly when it comes to protecting the lens of the eye. By enhancing lens exclusion during non-contrast head CT scans, we have taken a significant step in mitigating the risk associated with ionising radiation exposure. Although substantial improvements were made, achieving the RCR audit standard remained elusive. Ongoing re-education, reaudits and a multidisciplinary approach are necessary to optimise radiographer adherence and reduce ionising radiation exposure to the lens during head CT scans. This quality improvement project proves that continued emphasis on gantry tilt and patient positioning in radiographer education and training can make a significant difference in patient safety. As we move forward, let us remember that even small improvements can make a big difference in safeguarding the health and well-being of patients.
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.