ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Development and Initial Evaluation of an In-House Paediatric CT Immobilisation Device.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPaediatric imaging often requires immobilisation to reduce motion artefacts, reduce the risk of repeat imaging and subsequently reduce patient radiation exposure. Commercial immobilisation devices may be expensive and infrequently used, making them difficult to justify for institutions with budget constraints. This study aimed to design and evaluate a cost-effective, in-house alternative.
methodsAn in-house CT immobilisation device was developed using acrylic and polyethylene foam, tailored for newborns under 5 kg. Image quality was assessed using a Gammex ACR phantom on a CT scanner. Hounsfield units, noise and artefacts were compared between the in-house and commercial devices. Artefacts were independently evaluated by a radiographer and a medical physicist.
resultsThe in-house device performed comparably to the commercial version, with uniformity deviation within 2 HU and noise within 2.4 SD of baseline values; artefacts were minimal for both devices. There was no significant difference between the two immobilisation devices (p = 0.711). Stability concerns with the in-house device's square base could be resolved using immobilisation straps, and future iterations should address the foam insert's porous nature.
conclusionThe in-house CT immobilisation device offers a cost-effective alternative without compromising image quality, making it a viable option for healthcare institutions with limited budgets. However, its implementation would require further clinical evaluation and compliance with local regulations.
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.