ArticleSpine deformity2025
Which slot scanning device is best for low-dose radiographs in pediatric scoliosis? A pilot study.
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lumbar, thoracic, and bilateral vertebral body tethering: do surgical outcomes differ?Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in healthcare for adult spinal deformity patients.Spine deformity · 2025Observational
- Outcomes of Vertebral Body Tethering in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Prospective, Multicenter Study.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStudies have demonstrated a higher lifetime risk of cancer in AIS patients compared to age-matched controls. An asynchronous slot scan feature with ultra-small angle tomosynthesis reconstruction recently became available at our institution. Thus, we aimed to compare the performance of this new technology to the existing biplanar slot scanner for scoliosis imaging using standard dose settings.
methodsAll scoliosis patients under 18 years old from a single institution who underwent diagnostic imaging with both the asynchronous (True2Scale) and biplanar imaging system (EOS®) were included. Overall image quality was independently reviewed using a previously published method. Anthropomorphic phantom evaluations and dose measurements were conducted, with effective doses compared between systems. A computerized model based on phantom data estimated standardized patient effective doses.
results40 imaging studies from 20 patients met the inclusion criteria. ICC for overall image quality was 0.88, with weighted-Cohen's Kappa analysis showing very high agreement (κ = 0.873). On average, patients imaged with the asynchronous system received 0.23 ± 0.15 (median: 0.10) mSv in each study, while patients imaged with the biplanar system received 0.12 ± 0.05 (median: 0.13) mSv. A bootstrap Welch's t-test showed a significant difference in mean radiation doses (p = 0.038, mean difference = 0.11 mSv, T2S higher than EOS). AP dose analysis showed no significant difference (p = 0.196), with the asynchronous system at 0.07 ± 0.03 (median: 0.07) mSv and biplanar at 0.06 ± 0.02 (median: 0.05) mSv.
conclusionsBoth technologies with standard dose parameters provided comparable image quality. While the asynchronous system delivers slightly higher radiation doses, both systems expose patients to less than annual background radiation (3 mSv) and standard 2-view scoliosis imaging doses. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these pilot findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III-retrospective cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40782304What 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.