ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Challenges Associated with Effective Implementation of CT Dose Check Standards and Radiation Monitoring Index in Computed Tomography: Healthcare Sector Experience.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Common Nuclear Medicine Procedures for Pediatric in Dubai Health.Pediatric reports · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) radiation dose management tools should be used whenever possible, particularly with the increasing demand for acquiring CT studies. Herein, we aim to assess the advantages and challenges faced with implementing two CT dose management tools. A second aim was to highlight CT examinations exceeding dose notification values (NVs) and define the common set of causes. A total of 13,037 CT examinations collected over a six-month period, were evaluated, using two independent CT dose management tools, a CT Dose Notification prospective-view tool (PVT) following CT Dose Check standards and a retrospective statistical-based view tool (RSVT). Dose NVs were set to twice the Local Diagnostic Reference Levels. There was a significant discrepancy between dose NV counts registered with prospective (4.15%) and retrospective (7.98%) tools using T-Test. A core difference is the dose configuration setup, with PVT and RSVT being dose per series and whole study, respectively. Both prospective and retrospective dose management tools were equally useful despite their technical difference. Configuring the CT prospective dose notification check tool using NVs that is based on DRLs has limitations, and one needs to establish dose NVs per series to overcome this technical hurdle. Technical challenges make the implementation of CT Dose Check standards puzzling.
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.