ArticleEuropean radiology2025
International survey on diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications in plain radiography.
Article in European radiology, 2025. 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.
- International survey in four European countries on diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications in computed tomography.Insights into imaging · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo collect and analyze radiation dose-related data as part of international cooperation; to define diagnostic reference levels (DRL) for 24 X-ray projections in plain radiography (DX) considering anatomical region, clinical task, and procedural technique; and to harmonize the exposure practice across country borders.
methodsA multicenter study was performed in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland in 2022-23 to provide dose-related data. Healthcare facilities were asked to provide processed data from their dose management systems. A 5%-level was used for assessing the statistical significance of dose differences between various groups.
resultsDose-related data from 85 radiographic systems in academic and non-academic, public, and private healthcare facilities were analyzed. Dose-related parameters differed significantly for many projections with different clinical tasks and techniques. Dose-related data of the procedures varied by a maximum factor of 16 for the same system, and median dose values also differed between hospitals by a maximum factor of 31. A fifth of the surveyed systems exhibit doses above more than half of the new DRLs defined in this study. Apart from the three reference procedures, no significant dose differences were observed between X-ray systems of different ages, from different manufacturers, or from different countries.
conclusionsThis is the first survey in which exposure practices were investigated in institutions in different central European countries by establishing clinical DRLs for radiography. The observed dose variations could be explained by different reasons, such as non-optimized dose protocols. The new DRLs help to harmonize the exposure practice across country borders. KEY POINTS: Question What is the exposure practice for plain radiography procedures for which no clinical diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been defined? Are there differences between countries? Findings The dose for the same clinical task and technique can vary considerably among institutions but, on average, do not significantly differ between neighboring countries in Europe. Clinical relevance In this international multicenter study, clinical DRLs were defined for 24 plain radiography projections to promote the optimization of the exposure practice, to reduce dose variations among institutions even across national borders, and to strengthen international cooperation among users.
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.