Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40679758›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2025

Current practices and perceptions on diagnostic reference levels: a EuroSafe Imaging Survey Analysis.

John Damilakis, Boris Brkljacic, Guy Frija, Timo De Bondt, Graciano Paulo, Virginia Tsapaki, Eliseo Vano, European Society of Radiology (ESR)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A Multi-Centre Study:Saudi medical journal · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

John DamilakisSchool of Medicine, University of Crete, Iraklion, Crete, Greece. john.damilakis@med.uoc.gr.
Boris BrkljacicSchool of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Šalata 3, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Guy FrijaUniversite de Paris, 12 Rue de L'Ecole de Medecine, 75006, Paris, France.
Timo De BondtVITAZ, Moerlandstraat 1, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.
Graciano PauloMedical Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, ESTESC-Coimbra Health School, Instituto Politecnico de Coimbra, 3046‑854, Coimbra, Portugal.
Virginia TsapakiMedical Physics, Konstantopoulio General Hospital, Nea Ionia, Greece.
Eliseo VanoComplutense University, Madrid, Spain.
European Society of Radiology (ESR)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite progress in implementing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) across Europe, clinical practices remain variable. This prompts the EuroSafe Imaging campaign to conduct a survey assessing current practices, perceptions, and challenges related to DRLs. A total of 146 responses were collected from radiology departments in 38 countries, predominantly in the EU/EEA region. While 52.4% reported established local DRLs, significant gaps were identified, with 34.5% lacking local DRLs and 13.1% unaware of their existence. DRLs were primarily established for computed tomography (CT) (88.7%) and conventional radiography (77.5%), with lower implementation in interventional radiology (36.6%). Key challenges included time constraints, data collection difficulties, and limited standardization across institutions. Education gaps were notable, with less than half of the respondents reporting DRL-related training for radiology residents. Respondents emphasized the need for dose management systems, personalized DRLs based on clinical indications, and enhanced education and policy support. Addressing barriers through targeted training, policy enhancements, and technological innovations can improve DRL implementation. Future efforts should focus on promoting standardized clinical protocols, increasing awareness, and fostering European and international collaboration to ensure the consistent use and optimization of DRLs in clinical practice. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The article critically examines the variability and challenges in implementing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) across European radiology departments, providing actionable recommendations on policy, education, and technological advancements to optimize radiation protection and improve clinical radiology practices. Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) help healthcare providers ensure that radiation doses from medical imaging, like CT scans and X-rays, are not higher than necessary. This study looked at how DRLs are used across Europe. It found that while many hospitals have established and follow DRLs, others do not, which may affect patient safety. Challenges like time constraints and lack of training prevent better use of DRLs. Improving education for medical staff and updating protocols can help protect patients by reducing unnecessary radiation exposure while still ensuring accurate diagnoses. KEY POINTS: Variability persists in diagnostic reference level (DRL) practices across Europe. Over half of radiology departments have established local DRLs. Less than half of radiology residents receive structured DRL training. Improved DRL adoption can optimize radiation protection and patient safety. Collaboration, training, and standardized protocols are essential for better DRL practices.

Indexed as

Diagnostic reference levelsOptimisationRadiation dosageSurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40679758
PMCPMC12274150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.