ArticleSaudi medical journal2026
Estimating Radiation Dose and Proposing Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric Fluoroscopy of Micturating Cystourethrogram:
Article in Saudi medical journal, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare age- and weight-specific methods used to estimate radiation doses and to propose institutional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for paediatric fluoroscopy of micturating cystourethrogram (MCUG). Methods: In this retrospective study, MCUG fluoroscopy parameters were gathered for 100 paediatric patients from July 2025 to January 2026. The data included the MCUG paediatric procedures for patients aged 0-15 years. The data were categorized into paediatric weight- and age-specific groups. Paediatric weight-specific groups were ≤ 5, 5 < - 10, 10 < - 20, and >20 kg, and paediatric age-specific groups were ≤ 1, 1 < - 5, 5 < - 10, and < 10 - 15 years old. Results: Differences were observed in dose area product (DAP) and DRL results for age- and weight-specific methods, especially for paediatric age groups of 1 < - 5 and 5< - 10 years old compared with paediatric weight groups of 5 < -10 kg and 10 < - 20 kg ( Conclusion: The paediatric weight-specific method shows realistic and lower DAP and DRL values. The results of DRLs for the MCUG fluoroscopy were acceptable when compared with literature results.
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.