Testing a different centring point for pelvic x-rays

STandardisation Of suPine Pelvic rAdioGraph tEchnique (STOPPAGE). Validating a different centring point for pelvic radiographs in a supine position

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN77100098

Enrollment

314

Registered

2021-07-28

Start date

2021-08-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-01-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Pelvic radiograph Not Applicable

Interventions

This study will test the different centring point for reliability and acceptability. Two NHS clinical sites in England will be used with one undertaking pelvis radiography according to the different t

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: All patients referred for a pelvic radiograph from outpatient (OP) clinics and general practitioners (GPs)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Patients referred for one or both hip radiographs (XHIPB) as the resultant images do not include the same anatomy as a true pelvis radiograph 2. Anyone with a hip prosthesis as the anatomical measures will not be valid 3. Immobile patients who may need additional adjustments to techniques 4. Patients <18 years old or pregnant 5. Those unable to read the participant information leaflet (PIS) or unable to provide informed written consent due to a lack of capacity (Mental Capacity Act) 6. Patients who are prisoners or in police custody to minimise examination times, reduce anxiety and overall risk

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The reliability of the evidence-based centring point in the different technique versus usual care for sagittal, axial and coronal rotation, image quality and included anatomy, assessed by image review of radiographs at a single timepoint	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Assessed at a single timepoint: 1. Differences in radiological measurements between techniques, assessed using image review of radiographs for sagittal, axial and coronal rotation 2. The radiation dose of the techniques assessed using dose area product (DAP) - median and 75th percentiles 3. Differences in the number of repeat radiographs between techniques, measured using the number of repeat radiographs performed - median and 75th percentiles 4. Image quality between techniques assessed by the subjective opinion of the operator and the Exposure Index 5. The included anatomy between techniques, assessed by image review of radiographs for missing anatomy 6. Qualitative opinions of the staff performing the radiographs assessed using the Likert scale of ease/difficulty in palpating the required anatomy for the technique and thematic analysis of CRF free text comments	—

Measure

Time frame

Assessed at a single timepoint: 1. Differences in radiological measurements between techniques, assessed using image review of radiographs for sagittal, axial and coronal rotation 2. The radiation dose of the techniques assessed using dose area product (DAP) - median and 75th percentiles 3. Differences in the number of repeat radiographs between techniques, measured using the number of repeat radiographs performed - median and 75th percentiles 4. Image quality between techniques assessed by the subjective opinion of the operator and the Exposure Index 5. The included anatomy between techniques, assessed by image review of radiographs for missing anatomy 6. Qualitative opinions of the staff performing the radiographs assessed using the Likert scale of ease/difficulty in palpating the required anatomy for the technique and thematic analysis of CRF free text comments

—

Countries

England, United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026