ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of X-ray Beam Collimation in Adult Chest Radiography.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
backgroundRestricting the irradiated volume can reduce X-ray scattering incidents on the image receptor. Proper X-ray collimation during medical imaging reduces a patient's dose while improving image quality. Even though the patient radiation dose due to chest X-ray imaging is low, the 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA) principle should be satisfied, especially for young patients. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of collimation in digital chest radiography. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-eight chest radiographs were studied retrospectively from February 2021 to December 2021. Chest images were collected from three main centers in the Madinah region of Saudi Arabia. The ratio of the field of interest area to the field of view (FOV) was measured and calculated to determine the accuracy of X-ray beam collimation.
resultsOut of 98 chest radiographs enrolled in the study, 87.8% (n=80) were adequately collimated, while 12.2% (n=18) were rejected due to inadequate collimation. The ratio of the field of interest collimated area of chest radiographs was 0.547, which indicated an acceptable value. Among the three centers, Center 2 showed higher, significant, adequate collimation than Center 1 (P<0.001) and Center 3 (P=0.007). There was a significant gender difference in collimation levels as the level of collimation of female chest radiographs is inferior to that of males (P>0.001).
conclusionsThe collimation of chest radiographs among the three centers was adequate. Based on the study findings, the X-ray beam collimation was sufficient, indicating good optimization and no unnecessary radiation exposure to patients and staff. The collimation of chest radiographs in females was significantly inferior to that of males.
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.