Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncert...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Márcio Luís Duarte [verfasserIn] Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos [verfasserIn] Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira [verfasserIn] Wagner Iared [verfasserIn] Maria Stella Peccin [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: São Paulo Medical Journal - Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016, 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:139 ; year:2021 ; number:4 ; pages:388-397

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ064823660

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ064823660
003	DE-627
005	20230309042442.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ064823660
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Márcio Luís Duarte \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database.
650		4	\|a Fractures, bone
650		4	\|a Radiation dosage
650		4	\|a Tomography, X-ray computed
650		4	\|a Low-dose CT
650		4	\|a Standard-dose CT CT scan
650		4	\|a X-ray
650		4	\|a ALARA
650		4	\|a Detection rate
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
700	0		\|a Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Wagner Iared \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Maria Stella Peccin \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t São Paulo Medical Journal \|d Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016 \|g 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 \|w (DE-627)324825102 \|w (DE-600)2031087-0 \|x 18069460 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:139 \|g year:2021 \|g number:4 \|g pages:388-397
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2153
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 139 \|j 2021 \|e 4 \|h 388-397

Indexfelder

author_variant	m l d mld l r d s lrds a s b o asbo w i wi m s p msp
matchkey_str	article:18069460:2021----::optdoorpyihodsrdainesstnadoeaitofrigoigrcue
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064823660 (DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Márcio Luís Duarte verfasserin aut Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database. Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate Medicine R Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos verfasserin aut Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira verfasserin aut Wagner Iared verfasserin aut Maria Stella Peccin verfasserin aut In São Paulo Medical Journal Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 (DE-627)324825102 (DE-600)2031087-0 18069460 nnns volume:139 year:2021 number:4 pages:388-397 https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 139 2021 4 388-397
spelling	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064823660 (DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Márcio Luís Duarte verfasserin aut Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database. Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate Medicine R Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos verfasserin aut Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira verfasserin aut Wagner Iared verfasserin aut Maria Stella Peccin verfasserin aut In São Paulo Medical Journal Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 (DE-627)324825102 (DE-600)2031087-0 18069460 nnns volume:139 year:2021 number:4 pages:388-397 https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 139 2021 4 388-397
allfields_unstemmed	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064823660 (DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Márcio Luís Duarte verfasserin aut Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database. Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate Medicine R Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos verfasserin aut Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira verfasserin aut Wagner Iared verfasserin aut Maria Stella Peccin verfasserin aut In São Paulo Medical Journal Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 (DE-627)324825102 (DE-600)2031087-0 18069460 nnns volume:139 year:2021 number:4 pages:388-397 https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 139 2021 4 388-397
allfieldsGer	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064823660 (DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Márcio Luís Duarte verfasserin aut Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database. Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate Medicine R Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos verfasserin aut Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira verfasserin aut Wagner Iared verfasserin aut Maria Stella Peccin verfasserin aut In São Paulo Medical Journal Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 (DE-627)324825102 (DE-600)2031087-0 18069460 nnns volume:139 year:2021 number:4 pages:388-397 https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 139 2021 4 388-397
allfieldsSound	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 doi (DE-627)DOAJ064823660 (DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Márcio Luís Duarte verfasserin aut Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database. Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate Medicine R Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos verfasserin aut Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira verfasserin aut Wagner Iared verfasserin aut Maria Stella Peccin verfasserin aut In São Paulo Medical Journal Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 (DE-627)324825102 (DE-600)2031087-0 18069460 nnns volume:139 year:2021 number:4 pages:388-397 https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 139 2021 4 388-397
language	English
source	In São Paulo Medical Journal 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 volume:139 year:2021 number:4 pages:388-397
sourceStr	In São Paulo Medical Journal 139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397 volume:139 year:2021 number:4 pages:388-397
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate Medicine R
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	São Paulo Medical Journal
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Márcio Luís Duarte @@aut@@ Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos @@aut@@ Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira @@aut@@ Wagner Iared @@aut@@ Maria Stella Peccin @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	324825102
id	DOAJ064823660
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ064823660</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309042442.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ064823660</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Márcio Luís Duarte</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fractures, bone</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Radiation dosage</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tomography, X-ray computed</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Low-dose CT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Standard-dose CT CT scan</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">X-ray</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ALARA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Detection rate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wagner Iared</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maria Stella Peccin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">São Paulo Medical Journal</subfield><subfield code="d">Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)324825102</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2031087-0</subfield><subfield code="x">18069460</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:139</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:388-397</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">139</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">388-397</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Márcio Luís Duarte
spellingShingle	Márcio Luís Duarte misc Fractures, bone misc Radiation dosage misc Tomography, X-ray computed misc Low-dose CT misc Standard-dose CT CT scan misc X-ray misc ALARA misc Detection rate misc Medicine misc R Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis
authorStr	Márcio Luís Duarte
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)324825102
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	18069460
topic_title	Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis Fractures, bone Radiation dosage Tomography, X-ray computed Low-dose CT Standard-dose CT CT scan X-ray ALARA Detection rate
topic	misc Fractures, bone misc Radiation dosage misc Tomography, X-ray computed misc Low-dose CT misc Standard-dose CT CT scan misc X-ray misc ALARA misc Detection rate misc Medicine misc R
topic_unstemmed	misc Fractures, bone misc Radiation dosage misc Tomography, X-ray computed misc Low-dose CT misc Standard-dose CT CT scan misc X-ray misc ALARA misc Detection rate misc Medicine misc R
topic_browse	misc Fractures, bone misc Radiation dosage misc Tomography, X-ray computed misc Low-dose CT misc Standard-dose CT CT scan misc X-ray misc ALARA misc Detection rate misc Medicine misc R
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	São Paulo Medical Journal
hierarchy_parent_id	324825102
hierarchy_top_title	São Paulo Medical Journal
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)324825102 (DE-600)2031087-0
title	Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ064823660 (DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713
title_full	Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis
author_sort	Márcio Luís Duarte
journal	São Paulo Medical Journal
journalStr	São Paulo Medical Journal
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	388
author_browse	Márcio Luís Duarte Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira Wagner Iared Maria Stella Peccin
container_volume	139
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Márcio Luís Duarte
doi_str_mv	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_auth	Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis
abstract	BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database.
abstractGer	BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database.
abstract_unstemmed	BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	4
title_short	Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis
url	https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021 https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460
remote_bool	true
author2	Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira Wagner Iared Maria Stella Peccin
author2Str	Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira Wagner Iared Maria Stella Peccin
ppnlink	324825102
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021
up_date	2024-07-04T00:29:45.985Z
_version_	1803606279834304512
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ064823660</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309042442.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ064823660</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Márcio Luís Duarte</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) accounts for 13% of all radiological examinations in the United States and 40-70% of the radiation that patients receive. Even with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT continues to be the gold standard for diagnosing bone fractures. There is uncertainty as to whether CT with a low radiation dose has a fracture detection rate similar to that of standard-dose CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine the detection rate of low-dose radiation CT and standard-dose radiation CT for fractures, in patients with suspected fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies on diagnostic accuracy within the evidence-based health program at a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to June 29, 2020, for studies evaluating the detection rates of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT for diagnosing bone fractures. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: The fracture detection rate according to the number of bones evaluated, using CT with low-dose radiation was 20.3%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 19.2%, and the difference between the methods was not significant. The fracture detection rate according to the number of patients, using CT with low-dose radiation was 56.0%, while with standard-dose radiation it was 58.7%, and this difference between the methods was not significant, either. CONCLUSION: CT with low-dose radiation presented detection rates similar to those of CT with standard-dose radiation, regardless of the bones evaluated. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019148491 at the PROSPERO database.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fractures, bone</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Radiation dosage</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tomography, X-ray computed</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Low-dose CT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Standard-dose CT CT scan</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">X-ray</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ALARA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Detection rate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lucas Ribeiro dos Santos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wagner Iared</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maria Stella Peccin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">São Paulo Medical Journal</subfield><subfield code="d">Associação Paulista de Medicina, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">139(2021), 4, Seite 388-397</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)324825102</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2031087-0</subfield><subfield code="x">18069460</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:139</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:388-397</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0374.r3.1902021</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/5daa2a08c8e640bda21b0f27d2a24713</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802021000400388&tlng=en</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1806-9460</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">139</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">388-397</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398117

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Computed tomography with low-dose radiation versus standard-dose radiation for diagnosing fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?