ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2025
Computed tomography dose management practices and the adoption of automated dose monitoring tools in Australia: a national survey.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study investigates computed tomography (CT) dose management and automatic dose monitoring software (DMS) use in Australian radiology departments. An online survey covering departmental characteristics, dose management practices, DMS usage, and radiation protection activities was distributed through national radiation organisations and social media. Of the 132 initial responses received, 45 were eligible, completed, and analysed. The findings indicate 91% (n = 41/45) of departments regularly assess CT doses, with 63% (n = 26/41) conducting such assessments only once a year. Automatic DMS tools were utilised by 41% (n = 17/41) of these departments for CT dose data collection and analysis, while 59% (n = 24/41) relied on traditional methods. Only 25% (n = 6/24) of non-DMS users indicated plans for future adoption. A radiation protection team was present in 41% (n = 17/41) of departments. While dose assessment is commonly practised, it mostly relies on manual methods and is performed infrequently. Broader DMS implementation and formal radiation protection teams are recommended to strengthen CT dose management and enable continuous monitoring.
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.