↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Can CT scan protocols used for radiotherapy treatment planning be adjusted to optimize image quality and patient dose? A systematic review
Published in
British Journal of Radiology, May 2017
DOI 10.1259/bjr.20160406
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This paper reviews publications related to the use of CT scans for radiotherapy treatment planning, specifically the impact of scan protocol changes on CT number and treatment planning dosimetry and on CT image quality. A search on PubMed and EMBASE and a subsequent review of references yielded 53 relevant papers. CT scan parameters significantly affect image quality. Some will also affect Hounsfield unit (HU) values though this is not comprehensively reported on. Changes in tube kilovoltage and, on some scanners, field of view and reconstruction algorithms have been found to produce notable HU changes. The degree of HU change which can be tolerated without changing planning dose by more than 1% depends on the body region and size, the planning algorithms, the treatment beam energy and type of plan. A change in soft tissue HU value has a greater impact than changes in HU for bone and air. The use of anthropomorphic phantoms is recommended when assessing HU changes. There is limited published work on CT scan protocol optimisation in radiotherapy. Publications suggest that HU tolerances of +/- 20 HU for soft tissue and +/- 50 HU for lung and bone would restrict dose changes in the treatment plan to less than 1%. Advances in knowledge: Literature related to the use of CT images in radiotherapy planning has been reviewed to establish the acceptable level of HU change and the impact on image quality of scan protocol adjustment. Conclusions have been presented and further work identified.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 11%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 12 6%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 96 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 39 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Engineering 11 5%
Unspecified 3 1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 105 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2024.
All research outputs
#11,471,843
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Radiology
#1,392
of 4,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,723
of 360,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Radiology
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.