Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41821440›Full record

ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2026

A comparison of dose between cone beam computed tomography and conventional computed tomography in broad beam geometry.

Joel Larsson, Zakarias Grönqvist, Olivia Carlstein, Sara Asplund

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joel LarssonDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gula stråket 2 B SU/Sahlgrenska, SE-413 45 Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8635-0778
Zakarias GrönqvistBirger Sjöberggymnasiet, Kunskapsförbundet Väst, Idrottsgatan 3, SE-462 23 Vänersborg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
Olivia CarlsteinSection of Diagnostic Imaging and Functional Medicine, NU Hospital Group, SE-461 85 Trollhättan, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
Sara AsplundSection of Diagnostic Imaging and Functional Medicine, NU Hospital Group, SE-461 85 Trollhättan, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.

Funding

NU hospital group
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A unified computed tomography dose index (CTDI) which includes all scattered radiation was used to investigate the difference in absorbed dose to the patient between a computed tomography (CT) and a cone beam CT (CBCT). The unified CTDI, denoted CTDI300,w, was measured using a 100 mm pencil ionization chamber at three positions covering 300 mm at each of the five phantom slots in three CTDI body phantoms. The dose length product of a lumbar spine protocol for the modalities was comparable (CT: 153 mGycm, CBCT: 126 mGycm), though the normalized CTDI300,w for the CT was 4.6 times higher than for the CBCT. The comparison between CTDI300,w and the two dose indexes provided by the systems showed a substantial underestimation for both modalities. The most accurate, but also the most inconvenient method to compare absorbed dose is to use the CTDI300,w. Most important is to always use the same dose index.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyRadiation DosageRadiometryTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansPhantoms, ImagingScattering, Radiation

Identifiers

PMID41821440
PMCPMC13046043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.