ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Establishment of recurrent exposures reference levels for repeated computed tomography examinations in adult patients on a nationwide level in Slovakia.
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 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.
- European multicenter study on recurrent imaging practice in computed tomography.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Effective Dose, Alternative Metrics, and SSDE: Experiences with Two CT Dose-Monitoring Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe study aims were: (1) to assess the incidence in 1 year, the cumulative incidences and the period prevalence in 3/5 years of the condition of patients accruing cumulative effective dose (CED) ≥ 100 mSv in health care centres providing CT examinations in Slovakia; and (2) to quantify their variability among different centres, to test the feasibility of establishing recurrent exposure reference levels (RERL) on a nationwide level. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe data were tracked during five consecutive years using the CT dose index and dose-length-product along with the patient's ID. ED was calculated using conversion factors. Hospitals were stratified according to the number of beds in clinics (0), small (< 200), medium (201-500), or large (> 500) hospitals.
resultsThe database included 1,278,928 patients who underwent 2,157,508 CT exams in 5 years. The I
conclusionThe management of patients with recurrent CT exposures is highly variable among hospitals and unrelated to the size of the institution. Incidence should be reported instead of prevalence. KEY POINTS: Question Beyond just reporting statistics on recurrent imaging, the question which needs to be addressed is how to use such information to optimise patient protection. Findings In Slovakia the 5-year incidence of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv average 6% and range from 0.3% to 36.9% among different hospitals. Clinical relevance The incidence of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv is highly variable among hospitals and unrelated to their size. The heterogeneity in the radiation exposure of recurrent patients prompts the introduction of RERL to aid in the optimisation of patient protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39638944What 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.