ArticleActa radiologica open2022
A survey of local diagnostic reference levels for the head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis computed tomography in Norway and Canada.
Article in Acta radiologica open, 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.
- Comparison of Low-Iodine Concentration Quantification Accuracy and Contrast-To-Noise Ratio Across Three Dual-Energy CT Techniques: A Phantom Study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- A multi-institutional assessment of low-dose protocols in chest computed tomography: Dose and image quality.Acta radiologica open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Computed tomography (CT) contributes to 60% of the collective dose in medical imaging. Literature has demonstrated that patient dose varies across regions and countries. Establishing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) contributes to the optimization of clinical practices and radiation protection. Purpose: To survey the dose indices (CTDIvol and dose-length product) for frequently performed CT examinations from the chosen hospitals in Norway and Canada and to determine local DRLs (LDRLs) based on the collected data. Material and Methods: The survey included eight scanners from two Norwegian hospitals and four scanners from four Canadian hospitals. Dosimetry data were collected for the following routine CT examinations: head, contrast-enhanced thorax, and abdomen and pelvis. Overall 480 adult average-sized patients from Norway and 360 from Canada were included in the survey. The LDRLs were determined as the 75th percentile of distributions of median values of dose indicators from different CT scanners. The differences in dose between scanners were determined using single-factor ANOVA. Results: The LDRLs determined in Norway were higher overall than in Canada. The obtained values were compared to the national DRLs. The dose from several scanners in Norway exceeded national Norwegian DRLs, while Canadian LDRLs were below the Canadian reference levels. The differences between the means of the dose distributions from each scanner were statistically significant ( Conclusion: Observed dose variations even in the same hospital, or from the same scanner model confirmed the need for CT protocol optimization.
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.