ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Large-area flat-panel detector versus conventional detector for full-spine digital radiography: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objective: To compare workflow efficiency, tube current-exposure time product (mAs), and image quality between a DRX-LC large-area flat-panel detector and a conventional flat-panel detector for full-spine digital radiography. Methods: In this retrospective comparative study, radiographs and examination records of 90 adult patients who underwent full-spine anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) digital radiography between August and September 2025 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized according to the detector used during clinical imaging into a DRX group (Carestream DRX-LC, 42.58 × 120.87 cm) or a conventional group (33.0 × 43.2 cm), with 45 patients in each group. The DRX group underwent single-exposure full-spine imaging, whereas the conventional group underwent 4-6 segmented acquisitions followed by automatic stitching. Examination duration and mAs values for AP and LAT imaging were recorded. Image quality was independently assessed by four experienced reviewers using a 4-point scoring system, and mean scores were analyzed. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups (all Conclusion: For full-spine digital radiography, use of the DRX-LC large-area detector was associated with fewer exposures, shorter examination time, lower mAs requirements, and better subjective image quality. These findings support its clinical value for optimizing full-spine imaging workflows.
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.