ArticleMedical physics2026
A Comparative dose and image quality assessment of a portable, multi-modality extremity imaging system for austere environments.
Article in Medical physics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid technological innovation in diagnostic imaging requires timely, evidence-based safety and quality assessment to ensure optimal patient care. This study evaluates a novel multi-modality extremity imaging system (OXOS MC2) designed for deployment in remote and austere environments. PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the radiation safety and image quality characteristics of the MC2 system in its three imaging modalities (radiography, fluoroscopy, and Dynamic Digital Radiography [DDR]), and to compare them with two conventional, single-modality reference systems: a portable radiographic unit and a mobile C-arm fluoroscopic unit.
methodRadiation dose and image quality were assessed for four extremity regions (hand, shoulder, ankle, knee). Patient dose metrics (Entrance Air Kerma [EAK] and Entrance Air Kerma Rate [EAKR]) were estimated using clinical techniques and measured primary radiation output. Operator dose (effective dose equivalent, H
resultsThe MC2 system demonstrated substantially lower patient EAK compared to the radiographic reference system (14%-59% of the reference). Although EAKR varied relative to the reference fluoroscopic system (15%-245% of the reference) due to differences in setup, the MC2's maximum AKR (3.53 mGy/min) remained well below the regulatory limit (44 mGy/min), indicating a negligible risk of radiation-induced skin injury for the patient. The IRID and IDRIR exhibited trends similar to the EAK and EAKR. Operator doses for the MC2 were consistently lower than those of both reference systems, with the H
conclusionThe OXOS MC2 is a safe and versatile imaging system capable of meeting various extremity imaging needs in remote and austere environments. With substantially reduced radiation dose and improved portability, it provides a robust alternative to conventional portable radiographic systems. While the MC2 system exhibits compromises in spatial resolution and beam hardness, its unique multi-modality capabilities enable the field deployment of previously inaccessible fluoroscopic and DDR imaging, thereby greatly enhancing patient access to advanced imaging techniques in resource-limited settings.
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.