ArticlePediatric radiology2024
Development and clinical feasibility of a reduced-dose radiograph in children for feeding tube placement.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2024. 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.
- The global enterprise.Pediatric radiology · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTemporary feeding tubes are commonly used but may lead to complications if malpositioned. Radiographs are the gold standard for assessing tube position, but clinician concern over radiation risks may curtail their use.
objectiveWe describe development and use of a reduced dose feeding tube radiograph (RDFTR) targeted for evaluation of feeding tube position. MATERIALS AND
methodsAge-based abdominal radiograph was adapted to use the lowest mAs setting of 0.32 mAs with field of view between carina and iliac crests. The protocol was tested in DIGI-13 line-pair plates and anthropomorphic phantoms. Retrospective review of initial clinical use compared dose area product (DAP) for RDFTR and routine abdomen, chest, or infant chest and abdomen. Review of RDFTR reports assessed tube visibility, malpositioning, and incidental critical findings.
resultsTesting through a line-pair phantom showed loss of spatial resolution from 2.2 line pairs to 0.6 line pairs but preserved visibility of feeding tube tip in RDFTR protocol. DAP comparisons across 23,789 exams showed RDFTR reduced median DAP 72-93% compared to abdomen, 55-78% compared to chest, and 76-79% compared to infant chest and abdomen (p<0.001). Review of 3286 reports showed tube was visible in 3256 (99.1%), malpositioned in airway 8 times (0.2%) and in the esophagus 74 times (2.3%). The tip was not visualized in 30 (0.9%). Pneumothorax or pneumoperitoneum was noted seven times (0.2%) but was expected or spurious in five of these cases.
conclusionRDFTR significantly reduces radiation dose in children with temporary feeding tubes while maintaining visibility of tube tip.
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.