Impact of Overlying Personal Items on CT Dose with Use of Automated Tube Current Modulation-Pilot Investigation.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and impact of overlying radiopaque personal items (e.g., cellular phones, zippers) on CT dose and image quality with use of automated tube current modulation. METHODS: Topogram images from 100 consecutive adult outpatient CT abdomen pelvis studies were retrospectively reviewed, and the number and type of overlying radiopaque personal items were recorded. Additionally, an anthropomorphic phantom was imaged with overlying personal items 1) present in topogram and axial images; 2) present in topogram but removed prior to axial acquisition; and 3) present in topogram positioned outside the field of view of the axial acquisition. dose length product (DLP) and CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) were compared to acquisitions performed without overlying personal items. Image noise was evaluated by assessing the standard deviation of Hounsfield units at the level of the overlying personal item. RESULTS: Overlying personal items were visible in topogram images for 55% of CT exams and included underwires (38% of exams), zippers (7%), and cellular phones (1%). DLP increased when a cellular phone was present in the topogram whether or not it was removed before axial image acquisition (3.7% p = 0.002, combined AutomA and SmartmA), and image noise increased (144%, p = 0.002; AutomA). No increase in dose or image noise was observed with overlying zippers or underwires or when any object was visible in the topogram outside the field of view of the axial images. CONCLUSIONS: Overlying personal items were observed in the majority of abdominopelvic CT scans. Large overlying radiopaque personal items resulted in increased dose and increased image noise. Removal of all overlying personal items will result in optimized dose and image quality.

Gender Reporting in Radiology Human Subjects Research.

PURPOSE: The aim of this report was to study the presence and extent of gender bias and reporting in radiology human subjects research. METHODS: For this bibliometric analysis, the authors reviewed all articles published between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016, in seven of the most cited general radiology journals. From each original research article studying human subjects, the number and gender of participants and whether gender-based results were reported were manually extracted. Articles evaluating gender-specific body parts were excluded. Article-level subject gender matching percentages were calculated and descriptive statistics reported. RESULTS: Of all 1,065 target journal articles during the study window, 522 met the human subjects research inclusion criteria. Of these, 48 (9.2%) made no mention at all of research subjects' gender. Of the 473 articles mentioning gender, 147 (31.1%) had more female and 308 (65.1%) more male subjects. But in aggregate, 105,763 of 254,102 (41.6%) of all subjects were male and 142,069 (55.9%) were female. By quartile distribution, subject gender matching was very variable (12.9% of articles with <25% match, 23.7% with 25%-50%, 29.4% with 50%-75%, and 34.0% with ≥75%). Of articles including subjects of both genders, however, only 27.5% (126 of 458) reported any gender-based results. CONCLUSIONS: In human subjects research published in the most cited general radiology journals, the gender of human subjects is a poorly controlled, and frequently neglected, variable. In an emerging era of personalized medicine, initiatives to ensure transparent reporting of gender-specific results may help catalyze otherwise overlooked discoveries to advance the health of all.