ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Evaluation of the reproducibility of automatic exposure control systems in general X-ray machines using a coin-based method.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automatic exposure control (AEC) in digital radiography adjusts exposure time based on the chosen milliamperage (mA) and the patient's anatomical characteristics, ensuring the delivery of an appropriate radiation dose for optimal image quality. This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of AEC systems in general X-ray machines under various conditions. AEC reproducibility was assessed in two general X-ray machines: the SIEMENS Multix Top and the DRGEM GXR-40S. Both systems offer three sensitivity settings (high, medium, and low). A stack of Thai ten-baht coins, consisting of one and five layers, was used as a test object and placed directly over the AEC sensor. Ten exposures were carried out for repeated measurements. Differences in mAs values and coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated, and statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results showed that mAs values changed in response to tube voltage, sensitivity setting, object thickness, and sensor position; however, these variations remained within acceptable limits. A higher mAs value was observed at lower tube voltages (80-81 kVp), a lower sensitivity setting (D or Slow), and a five-layer coin thickness. No significant differences were observed at higher tube voltage (100 kVp) and higher sensitivity (H or Fast; p > 0.05). In conclusion, AEC reproducibility testing showed mean mAs ranges of 0.51-3.25 with a maximum CV of 2.60% for SIEMENS, and 0.37-1.62 with a maximum CV of 3.37% for DRGEM. Both systems met international standard guidelines, with a CV below 5.00%, as recommended by AAPM Report No. 150, confirming consistent mAs values under various conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41037241What 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.