ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
The Importance of Patient Positioning in Radiography When Utilising Automatic Exposure Control.
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
introductionAutomatic exposure control (AEC) is a device used in radiographic practice which terminates a radiographic acquisition when a certain exposure threshold is reached. The AEC is commonly utilised for in-bucky imaging, such as for the chest, abdomen, pelvis and spine. There are many benefits to utilising the AEC where awareness and knowledge of the technology are thoroughly understood. Poor technique when utilising the AEC, however, will alter dose, and by extension, image quality. This study aimed to assess how changes in patient positioning when using AEC for chest, abdomen, lumbar spine and pelvic x-ray examinations affect patient dose and image quality?
methodsAn anthropomorphic phantom was marked every 1 cm from the ideal centring point in each direction; superior, inferior, left lateral and right lateral, for up to 5 cm of off-centring. Exposures were taken at each position and the tube current, air kerma and signal-to-noise ratios recorded for each exposure.
resultsAir-kerma changes ranged from a maximum reduction of 6.06%, 74.72%, 76.07%, and 35.66% for the chest, abdomen, pelvis and lumbar spine, respectively, to a maximum increased air kerma of 50.09%, 8.00% and 10.32% for the chest, pelvis and lumbar spine. The abdomen did not demonstrate any increased air-kerma results. Statistically significant changes (p < 0.05) to dose were observed in 54 of the 80 (67.5%) separate recordings. Changes to signal-to-noise ratio varied from a maximum negative change of 49.14% to a maximum positive change of 25.10%.
conclusionStatistically significant differences in dose were commonly discovered for mis-positioning beyond 1-2 cm, which will likely occur within the clinical environment. Such variation in dose and signal-to-noise ratio identifies potential impacts to image quality and dose burdens to patients. The results highlight the need for careful consideration when using the AEC and the requirement for accurate positioning technique by the radiographer.
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.