ArticleMedical physics2025
X-ray multimeter performance under calibration laboratory conditions.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Solid-state dosimeters have rendered ionization chambers obsolete for routine diagnostic X-ray quality control.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- X-ray multimeter performance under calibration laboratory conditions.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstimating dose delivered to patients for a typical mammographic or radiologic examination requires accurate knowledge of several beam quantities. X-ray multimeters (XMMs) are compact, solid-state semiconductor dosimeters that have become common for conventional QA measurements due to their ease of use. PURPOSE: In this investigation, the performance of two XMMs in low-energy x-ray calibration beams was assessed, and the stability of the manufacturer's calibration over time was evaluated.
methodsAn RTI Piranha and Radcal Accu-Gold+ with AGMS-DM+ sensor were used to measure air-kerma rates and half-value layers of UW-MO and UW-M series calibration beams. Measurement results were compared to reference values collected with standard instruments. The same measurements were repeated every 3-5 months for 2.5 years to evaluate whether the XMMs' energy response changes over time.
resultsAll air-kerma rate measurements and nearly all half-value layer measurements were within tolerance of the reference measurements. Both XMMs were satisfactorily stable over the course of the study, with all measured air-kerma rates within a 2% range relative to the reference for a specific beam. However, some drift in response was observed, particularly for the RTI Piranha.
conclusionsBoth XMMs met the performance standards provided by their respective manufacturers. An additional calibration would result in increased measurement accuracy for some beam series. One limitation of this study is that the detectors were not subject to more rigorous clinical conditions.
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.