ReviewSaudi medical journal2025
Evaluation of computed tomography radiation dose metrics in Saudi Arabia: Comparison to national and international diagnostic reference levels.
Review in Saudi medical journal, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review evaluates CT radiation dose levels in Saudi Arabia relative to national Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) established by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Kingdom (UK). A total of 31 studies published between 2015 and 2025 were reviewed, covering adult and pediatric CT protocols for head, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and multiphase scans. The review highlights variations in the volumetric computed tomographic dose index (CTDIvol), and the dose-length product (DLP) values among different institutions in KSA. For adult protocols, fifteen studies reported dose metric values below the KSA NDRLs, while 8 studies reported values below the UK NDRLs. In contrast, among pediatric studies, approximately 90% of the reported dose metrics were lower than the NDRLs in both KSA and the UK. The results emphasize the importance of implementing standardized protocols to enhance the KSA national DRLs and expand the range of examination protocols, particularly for pediatric patients.
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.