ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Diagnostic reference levels for indication-based CT categories in pediatric CT: data from an international registry.
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 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.
- Size-specific dose estimation in pediatric computed tomography: From dose characterization to individualized optimization.World journal of radiology · 2026Review
- An in-house fabricated patient-specific pediatric head CT phantom for trauma-oriented emergency imaging: two-scanner validation and expert reader assessment.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Attenuation-based ultra-low-dose lung computed tomography at 0.1 mSv to 0.3 mSv effective dose in children.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- The role of computed tomography in quantitative assessment of tracheal morphology before and after pulmonary artery sling surgery.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Relationship between Water-equivalent Diameter, Computed Tomography Dose Indices, and Image Noise in Pediatric Head Computed Tomography Under Active and Inactive Tube Current Modulation.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesComputed tomography (CT) radiation doses vary depending on medical indications, protocols, and local practice. Our aim is to establish diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for CT categories based on clinical indications in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed CT data from an international dose registry retrospectively, including scans performed in children under 18 years at 143 facilities between January 2016 and January 2021. DRLs were calculated for volumetric CT dose index (CTDI
resultsA total of 95,047 CT scans (mean age, 10.4 ± 5.6 years, 54% male), including 41 different indications, were included. DRLs increased with increasing age group (p < 0.05 for trend). For the head and the abdomen/pelvis body regions, there was greater variation between the CT categories than between the indications within the categories, suggesting these categories are valid. For example, in 10- to 15-year-old children, the DRLs for the DLP increased from 362 mGy·cm for head low dose to 2058 mGy·cm for head high dose. The U.S. DRLs were similar to the European for head categories, but were around twice as high for routine dose chest, and abdomen/pelvis.
conclusionsWe have established DRLs for indication-based CT category age groups to help standardize practice. KEY POINTS: Question CT categories are needed to reflect body regions and clinical indications with similar radiation dose requirements in pediatric patients. Findings Doses varied more between CT categories than within. DRLs for chest and abdomen/pelvis were about twice as high in the U.S. as in Europe. Clinical relevance DRLs as a function of patient age were developed for 14 broad anatomy- and indication-based CT categories in children using registry data.
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.