ArticleRadiology research and practice2025
Evaluating Radiation Exposures and Establishments of National Diagnostic Reference Levels for Patients Undergoing Chest Computed Tomography Examinations in Ethiopia.
Article in Radiology research and practice, 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.
- Evaluating Radiation Exposures and Establishments of National Diagnostic Reference Levels for Patients Undergoing Chest Computed Tomography Examinations in Ethiopia.Radiology research and practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomography is invaluable for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The common challenge is using an optimized CT technique to produce qualified images while giving patients the least amount of radiation possible. The objective of the study was to determine the national DRL values for adult patients undergoing chest computed tomography examination in Ethiopia. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted in twenty three (23) different CT scan facilities on 801 patients who underwent chest computed tomography examinations in Ethiopia, in which participants were recruited by systematic random sampling. Data processing in this study was carried out with a quantitative analysis technique, namely descriptive statistics. The study variables were CTDI volume and dose length product (DLP) for the radiation doses for chest CT examinations. The age range for all adult patients was above 15 years old. Their body weights were in the range of 40-80 kg. The third quartile of the distributions of the median values of these variables was used to establish chest national diagnostic reference levels. The national DRL was compared with DRLs of other countries. Microsoft Excel form and SPSS software version 26 were used to collect and analyze survey data. A total of 801 patients were examined with an average age of 48.96 years. The patients were examined with their radiological department protocol using multislice CT (MSCT) from different manufacturers. For adult chest computed tomography examinations, the calculated dose length product and computed tomography dose index third quartile values that were used as national diagnostic reference levels were 512.9 mGy cm and 10.165 mGy, respectively.Even though the computed tomography dose index volume of the current study is less than that of all African and non-African countries selected for comparison, the proposed national DLP of the current study values were intermediate and substantially higher than those reported in similar studies from African and non-African countries, respectively. It is plausible to believe that the number of sequences, scan parameters, and automatic exposure control all contribute to better optimization and increased scanner dose efficiency for non-African countries, which is the cause of this discrepancy.
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.