ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2024
Assessment of average glandular dose in mammography practice of a teaching hospital in Ghana.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: above the age of 40, women are advised to begin breast examinations and screenings for early detection of breast cancer. The average glandular dose (AGD) provides dosimetric information about the quantity of radiation received by the mammary glands during mammographic exposures. There is, therefore, the need to analyse the radiation dose received by patients presenting for mammography examinations. Methods: a retrospective cross-sectional design was carried out on the data of 663 participants, conveniently sampled between the months of July 2021 and June 2022. Paired T-test was used to compare imaging parameters for cranio-caudal (CC), medio-lateral (ML), automatic exposure control (AEC), manual exposure control (MEC), and left and right breast. Pearson´s correlation was used to test for relationship between imaging parameters and AGD. Results: the mean AGD per exposure was 1.9 ± 0.7 mGy for CC projections and 2.3 ± 1.2 mGy for ML projections. The mean AGD per examination for the study was 4.1 ± 1.4 mGy. A positive correlation was found between AGD per examination and exposure factors (tube loading and tube voltage), compressed breast thickness, and compression force. Patient age had no statistically significant relationship with the AGD per examination. Conclusion: average glandular dose (AGD) was consistent with other findings in literature studies. It was also observed that MEC yielded lower AGD per exposure values than AEC. There was no significant difference in the mean AGD per exposure for left and right breasts.
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.