ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2024
Impact of Electronic Collimation on Reducing Unnecessary Patient Dose in Digital Radiography.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In radiology, optimizing radiation protection is crucial, and field collimation plays a critical role in minimizing patient dose. As technology has evolved, electronic collimation has become the preferred method due to its effectiveness in digital imaging systems, replacing traditional film-screen systems. Objective: The current study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cropping in digital radiography and its potential impact on patient radiation dose because of improper collimation practices. Material and Methods: This retrospective analysis was conducted on digital X-ray machine images. Quality control tests were performed to ensure equipment accuracy, and image cropping was then measured by analyzing archived images. Finally, the cropped image fraction and associated unnecessary radiation doses were calculated. Results: Quality control tests confirmed that all imaging equipment was functioned within acceptable alignment and angle tolerances. The analysis of 911 images revealed a high prevalence of cropping (82%), with significant variation across different projections. Lateral knee images exhibited the highest cropping rate (96.2%), while abdominal images had the lowest (36.1%). Conclusion: Electronic image cropping can lead radiologic technologists to inaccurately define the primary radiation field, affecting image quality and potentially increasing patient radiation exposure. Based on the obtained results, proper collimation can reduce the average Dose Area Product (DAP) by 29.01%. This approach not only enhances patient safety but also minimizes unnecessary radiation exposure and potentially reduces healthcare costs.
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.