ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Development of acceptable quality radiation dose levels for common computed tomography examinations: A focused multicenter study in United Arab Emirates.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing Local Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) for Adult Computed Tomography in Emirates Health Services Hospitals: A Multicenter Dose Survey.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A closer look at the utilized radiation doses during computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for COVID-19 patients.Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Diagnostic Reference Level (DRL) is a practical tool for radiation dose optimization, yet it does not indicate the patient size or image quality. The Acceptable Quality Dose (AQD) introduced to address the limitations of the DRLs and it is based on image quality, radiation dose, and patient weight. The aim of this study is to establish the AQD for adult patients' undergoing Computed Tomography (CT) examinations (Head, chest, abdomen). Methods: This study is conducted in the four main hospitals at the Ministry of Health and Prevention. Patient information and exposure parameters were extracted. All the acceptable images are scored for their quality assessments. Data is classified as seven weight groups, <50, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90-99, and ≥100 kg. The mean ± SD, median, and 75th are calculated for the CTDIvol and DLP for each weight group per examination. Results: Out of 392, 358 CT examinations are scored with acceptable quality. The median CTDIvol values for the weight groups are obtained as 24.6, 25.4, 25.4, 25.0, 26.0, 27.0, and 29.0 mGy. Moreover, median DLP values are obtained as 576.7, 601.0, 616.5, 636.1, 654.0, 650.0, 780.0, and 622.5 mGy.cm, respectively, for head CT without Contrast Media (CM). Similar calculation for head CT with (CM), chest without CM, abdomen without CM, and chest and abdomen (with and without CM) CTs are presented. Conclusion: Images with bad, unacceptable and higher than necessary qualities contribute to increasing patient dose and increasing the DRLs. The AQD for the selected examinations were lower than the proposed DRLs in the United Arab Emirates. The integration of image quality and patients size in the assessment of the AQD values provide effective model to compare radiation dose indices within facility and compare with others. The obtained results may be useful in terms of improving dose and the diagnostic quality in the national and international levels.
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.