Access to and consistent use of automated centring technology remain limited among CT radiographers¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associationalr1–r2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Only 34.3% of respondents had access to auto-centring technology and 56.7% reported no access. → Hadi Yasser H. 2026
q2 i? Only 17.4% of the whole cohort reported always using auto-centring when available, with 3D camera–based systems the most commonly accessed type (45.5% of those with access). → Hadi Yasser H. 2026 (2)
Evidence¶
Hadi Yasser H. 2026¶
Hadi Yasser H., Bani‐Ahmad Mo'men, Moore Niamh, Clark Kevin R., Al‐Hayek Yazan, Albeshan Salman M., Alghamdi Sultan B., Precht Helle, England Andrew, McEntee Mark. (2026). Patient Centring in CT: An International Survey of Clinical Practice and Future Directions. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.70119
q2 · i? · associational · r1
Survey results on technology access among 321 radiographers; among those with access, 3D camera–based positioning was most frequent (50 respondents, 45.5%), followed by AI-based (20.0%) and combined systems (17.3%).
"Auto‐centring technology was available to just over one‐third of respondents (110, 34.3%), while 182 (56.7%) reported no access and 29 (9.0%) were unsure."
Hadi Yasser H. 2026 (2)¶
Hadi Yasser H., Bani‐Ahmad Mo'men, Moore Niamh, Clark Kevin R., Al‐Hayek Yazan, Albeshan Salman M., Alghamdi Sultan B., Precht Helle, England Andrew, McEntee Mark. (2026). Patient Centring in CT: An International Survey of Clinical Practice and Future Directions. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.70119
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Usage-pattern results for the whole cohort; only 15 respondents (4.7%) reported using auto-centring for all routine scans, with most indicating partial adoption, and 35.5% gave no usage response, largely corresponding to those without access.
"56 respondents (17.4%) stated they always used auto‐centring when available, 66 (20.5%) often and 63 (19.6%) sometimes"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Routine post-acquisition verification of HU values is uncommon and knowledge of positioning effects on CT numbers is inconsistent — related
- Mean CT centring knowledge score indicates only moderate proficiency, with greater score variability among less experienced and lower-volume radiographers — related
- Vertical off-centring below the gantry isocentre is the most frequently reported CT positioning error among radiographers — related
- Radiographers show substantial uncertainty about how localiser radiograph direction affects radiation dose and ATCM behaviour — related
- CT-specific qualification, experience and workload were not significantly associated with high CT centring knowledge scores in the international sample — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
limited-access-use-auto-centring-technology |
title |
Access to and consistent use of automated centring technology remain limited among CT radiographers |
description |
Access to and consistent use of automated centring technology remain limited among CT radiographers |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2031 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — hadi-yasser-h-2026, hadi-yasser-h-2026-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.