OBJECTIVES: CT is a valuable tool in diagnostic radiology but it is also associated with higher patient radiation doses compared with planar radiography. The aim of this article is to review patient dose for the most common types of CT examinations reported during the past 19 years. METHODS: Reported dosimetric quantities were compared with the European diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). Effective doses were assessed with respect to the publication year and scanner technology (i.e. single-slice vs multislice). RESULTS: Considerable variation of reported values among studies was attributed to variations in both examination protocol and scanner design. Median weighted CT dose index (CTDI(w)) and dose length product (DLP) are below the proposed DRLs; however, for individual studies the DRLs are exceeded. Median reported effective doses for the most frequent CT examinations were: head, 1.9 mSv (0.3-8.2 mSv); chest, 7.5 mSv (0.3-26.0 mSv); abdomen, 7.9 mSv (1.4-31.2 mSv); and pelvis, 7.6 mSv (2.5-36.5 mSv). CONCLUSION: The introduction of mechanisms for dose reduction resulted in significantly lower patient effective doses for CT examinations of the head, chest and abdomen reported by studies published after 1995. Owing to the limited number of studies reporting patient doses for multislice CT examinations the statistical power to detect differences with single-slice scanners is not yet adequate.
OBJECTIVES: CT is a valuable tool in diagnostic radiology but it is also associated with higher patient radiation doses compared with planar radiography. The aim of this article is to review patient dose for the most common types of CT examinations reported during the past 19 years. METHODS: Reported dosimetric quantities were compared with the European diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). Effective doses were assessed with respect to the publication year and scanner technology (i.e. single-slice vs multislice). RESULTS: Considerable variation of reported values among studies was attributed to variations in both examination protocol and scanner design. Median weighted CT dose index (CTDI(w)) and dose length product (DLP) are below the proposed DRLs; however, for individual studies the DRLs are exceeded. Median reported effective doses for the most frequent CT examinations were: head, 1.9 mSv (0.3-8.2 mSv); chest, 7.5 mSv (0.3-26.0 mSv); abdomen, 7.9 mSv (1.4-31.2 mSv); and pelvis, 7.6 mSv (2.5-36.5 mSv). CONCLUSION: The introduction of mechanisms for dose reduction resulted in significantly lower patient effective doses for CT examinations of the head, chest and abdomen reported by studies published after 1995. Owing to the limited number of studies reporting patient doses for multislice CT examinations the statistical power to detect differences with single-slice scanners is not yet adequate.
Authors: Nico R Mollet; Filippo Cademartiri; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Giuseppe Runza; Eugène P McFadden; Timo Baks; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hans Scheffel; Hatem Alkadhi; André Plass; Robert Vachenauer; Lotus Desbiolles; Oliver Gaemperli; Tiziano Schepis; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas Schertler; Lars Husmann; Jürg Grunenfelder; Michele Genoni; Philipp A Kaufmann; Borut Marincek; Sebastian Leschka Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-09-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas Hansch; Peter Kohlmann; Uta Hinneburg; Joachim Boettcher; Ansgar Malich; Gunter Wolf; Hendrik Laue; Alexander Pfeil Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Michelle Moghadassi; Nicole Wilson; Thomas R Nelson; John M Boone; Christopher H Cagnon; Robert Gould; David J Hall; Mayil Krishnam; Ramit Lamba; Michael McNitt-Gray; Anthony Seibert; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel J Mirota; Ali Uneri; Sebastian Schafer; Sajendra Nithiananthan; Douglas D Reh; Masaru Ishii; Gary L Gallia; Russell H Taylor; Gregory D Hager; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Timo De Bondt; Tom Mulkens; Federica Zanca; Lotte Pyfferoen; Jan W Casselman; Paul M Parizel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315