ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2021
The reliability of radiation dose display of a computed tomography scanner.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Establishment of local diagnostic reference levels for trunk computed tomography examinations at governmental hospitals in the Gaza Strip: a cross-sectional study.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternationally, the typical allowed difference between the measured radiation dose and dose reported by a computed tomography (CT) scanner is ±20 %. The objective is to describe a method in order to analyse this difference in a CT scanner in the Emergency Department of Kanta-Häme Central Hospital, and to calculate a correction factor for more comparable radiation dose values in further studies.
methodsTen intra-day radiation dose measurements were performed with undisturbed setting. Measurement reports on differences between measured and displayed dose were gathered from the vendor maintenance and supervising authority over a 12-year period. Additionally, two in-house measurements were made. A total of 18 datapoints were collected, with some differences in measurement settings. Data were also analysed against imaging parameters, ambient air pressure and time to identify trends or associations in the variation of the discrepancy.
resultsMeasured doses were generally lower than displayed doses. Differences between displayed and measured doses varied between -3.46 and -0.10 %, with a mean of -1.26 % in the intra-day measurements, and between +4.65 and -17.3 %, with a mean of -7.53 % in the long-term data. There were no trends nor connections in the variations.
conclusionSince the acceptable difference between the radiation dose display and the measured dose is relevant, the average difference for every CT scanner should be determined before radiation dose studies, especially when comparing multiple scanners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.