Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33449177›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications: results of a large-scale European survey.

Virginia Tsapaki, John Damilakis, Graciano Paulo, Alexander A Schegerer, Jacques Repussard, Werner Jaschke, Guy Frija

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Virginia TsapakiKonstantopoulio General Hospital, Agias Olgas 3-5, 14233, Nea Ionia, Athens, Greece. virginia@otenet.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0275-4650
John DamilakisSchool of Medicine, University of Crete, Iraklion, Crete, Greece.
Graciano PauloMedical Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, ESTESC - Coimbra Health School, Coimbra, Portugal.
Alexander A SchegererDepartment of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany.
Jacques Repussard, St Nom la Bretèche, France.
Werner JaschkeDepartment of Radiology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Guy FrijaParis Descartes University, Paris, France.

Funding

European Commission ENER/2017/NUCL/SI2.759174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of defining diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) on a European basis for specific clinical indications (CIs), within the context of the European Clinical DRLs (EUCLID) European Commission project.

methodsA prospective, multicenter, industry-independent European study was performed to provide data on 10 CIs (stroke, chronic sinusitis, cervical spine trauma, pulmonary embolism, coronary calcium scoring, coronary angiography, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, colic/abdominal pain, and appendicitis) via an online survey that included information on patient clinical, technical, and dosimetric parameters. Data from at least 20 patients per CI were requested from each hospital. To establish DRLs, a methodology in line with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Report 135 good practice recommendations was followed.

resultsData were collected from 19 hospitals in 14 European countries on 4299 adult patients and 10 CIs to determine DRLs. DRLs differ considerably between sites for the same CI. Differences were attributed mainly to technical protocol and variable number of phases/scan lengths. Stroke and hepatocellular carcinoma were the CIs with the highest DRLs. Coronary calcium scoring had the lowest DRL value. Comparison with published literature was limited, as there was scarce information on DRLs based on CI.

conclusionsThis is the first study reporting on feasibility of establishing CT DRLs based on CI using European data. Resulting values will serve as a baseline for comparison with local radiological practice, national authorities when DRLs are set/updated, or as a guideline for local DRL establishment. KEY POINTS: • First study reporting on the feasibility of establishing CT diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indication using data collected across Europe. • Only one-fourth of the hospitals had CT machines less than 5 years old. • Large dose variations were observed among hospitals and CT protocols were quite different between hospitals.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Reference LevelsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultChild, PreschoolEuropeHumansProspective StudiesRadiation DosageReference ValuesPatient safetyRadiation exposureTomography scanners, X-ray computed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.