ReviewCureus2024
Radiation Doses in Routine CT Examinations for Adult Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Dose Evaluation in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Repeated Brain Computed Tomography Examinations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optimizing Radiation Risk Assessment in CT Imaging: Establishing Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels and Personalized Dose Strategies for Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis Scans.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Comparison of chest computed tomography in Turbo FLASH mode with conventional mode for coronary artery disease screening: radiation dose, image quality, and calcium scoring performance.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) is an important imaging technique that produces detailed cross-sectional images for diagnosing medical conditions. However, the associated radiation exposure raises concerns. Establishing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) helps identify unusual radiation doses and optimize exposure while maintaining diagnostic image quality. The purpose of this systematic review is to review the radiation doses received by adult patients in the head, chest, abdomen, pelvis, abdomen-pelvis (AP), and combined chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CAP) CT scans in Saudi Arabia. A search was conducted in several databases including PubMed and Google Scholar to identify studies that have established DRLs or determined radiation dose for adult CT examinations. Only studies that specifically assessed DRLs in actual adult patients were considered for inclusion. Out of a total of 31 articles that were identified as eligible, 13 were included after a thorough screening process. The values of CTDI
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.