ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
An Analysis of Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels in India Compared to Other Countries.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-kVp techniques for radiation dose optimization in abdominopelvic contrast-enhanced CT: a scoping review.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- 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
- Image Quality Assessment Methods in Clinical Diagnostic Imaging: Overview of Current Technical Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Development of Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Common Adult Computed Tomography Examinations at Mzuzu Central Hospital, Malawi.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2025Article
- Establishing of a National Diagnostic Reference Level for Radiation Dose in Digital Paediatric Pelvic X-Rays in Jordan: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2025Article
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
Computed Tomography (CT) is vital for diagnosing and monitoring medical conditions. However, increased usage raises concerns about patient radiation exposure. Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) aim to minimize radiation doses in CT imaging. This study examines CT DRLs in India compared to other countries to identify optimization opportunities. A literature review was conducted to gather data from published studies, guidelines, and regulatory authorities. Findings show significant international variations in CT DRLs, with differences up to 50%. In India, DRLs also vary significantly across states. For head CT exams, Indian DRLs are generally 20-30% lower than international standards (27-47 mGy vs. 60 mGy). Conversely, for abdominal CT scans, Indian DRLs are 10-15% higher (12-16 mGy vs. 13 mGy). Factors influencing DRL variations include equipment differences, imaging protocols, patient demographics, and regulatory conditions. Dose-optimization techniques like automatic exposure control and iterative reconstruction can reduce radiation exposure by 25-60% while maintaining image quality. Comparative data highlight best practices, such as the United Kingdom's 30% reduction in CT doses from 1984 to 1995 via DRL implementation. This study suggests that adopting similar practices in India could reduce radiation doses by 20-40% for common CT procedures, promoting responsible CT usage and minimizing patient exposure.
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.