ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Design and Use of a Custom Phantom for Regular Tests of Radiography Apparatus: A Feasibility Study.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
Abstract
This study investigates the feasibility of employing an in-house-developed physical phantom dedicated to the weekly quality control testing of radiographic systems, performed by radiographers. For this purpose, a 3D phantom was fabricated, featuring test objects, including a model representing a lesion. Alongside this phantom, a commercial phantom, specifically, IBA's Primus L, was utilized. Weekly imaging of both phantoms was conducted over a span of four weeks, involving different imaging protocols and anode voltages. Subsequently, the obtained data underwent visual evaluation, as well as measurement of the intensity of selected regions of interest. The average values for three incident kilovoltages remained consistently stable over the four weeks, with the exception of the "low energy" case, which exhibited variability during the first week of measurements. Following experiments in "Week 1", the X-Ray unit was identified as malfunctioning and underwent necessary repairs. The in-house-developed phantom demonstrated its utility in assessing the performance of the X-Ray system.
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.