ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Patient Centring in CT: An International Survey of Clinical Practice and Future Directions.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate patient centring in computed tomography (CT) is essential for optimising radiation dose and ensuring consistent image quality. Mis-centring can affect automatic tube current modulation, compromise CT number accuracy and increase radiation exposure, but actual centring practices and knowledge differ widely. This study investigates CT centring practices, radiographers' knowledge of their implications and the use of advanced technologies for improved positioning accuracy.
methodsAn international survey was conducted among radiographers performing CT imaging using a 38-question questionnaire covering demographics, patient positioning, CT number variability, radiation dose management and auto-centring technologies. Translated into 12 languages, the survey was distributed through professional societies and social media, with data analysed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests.
resultsA total of 321 radiographers from 43 countries completed the survey. Vertical mis-centring was frequently identified by respondents as the predominant positioning error, with 101 (31.5%) reporting that patients were commonly positioned below the gantry isocentre. 126 of the respondents (39.3%) believed HU values likely change with mis-centring, while 76 (23.7%) were unsure. Understanding of localiser direction varied, with 113 (35.4%) stating it 'probably' affects radiation dose and 45 (14.1%) unsure. Although 110 (34.3%) had access to automated centring technologies, only 56 (17.4%) used them consistently. Practitioners holding CT-specific qualifications were more likely to achieve a high knowledge score than those without (58.3% vs. 55.7%; OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.70-1.76; p = 0.72).
conclusionThis global survey shows significant variability in CT patient-centring practices and knowledge. Improved training and more automated positioning tools are needed to optimise dose and image quality in CT.
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.