SynthesisBMJ open2026
Clinical indication-based diagnostic reference levels in CT: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- First nationwide clinical indication-based diagnostic reference levels incorporating size-specific dose estimates for adult chest CT in Morocco.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Reconstruction Enables Substantial Radiation Dose Reduction in Ultra-High-Resolution Temporal Bone CT: a Body Donor Study.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
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
objectivesA growing number of national diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications (NDRL
designSystematic review.
settingA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus from 1996 to 24 august 2025. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis framework was followed to report the study selection process in this review. Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate the articles critically.
participantsAdult patients undergoing CT scans for various clinical indications.
interventionClinical indication-based CT protocols with reported NDRL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were NDRL
resultA total of 4146 articles were identified. 410 full texts were examined and 11 studies were included in the systematic review. 25 clinical indications across seven anatomical regions were identified across 11 included studies. The NDRL
conclusionSeveral factors contribute to dose discrepancies for the same clinical indications in CT imaging, including kilovolt peak and milliampere-second, scan length, number of phases, patient size, reconstruction algorithm, CT scanner age and specifications, underscoring the need for standardised and optimised CT protocols. This review highlighted several challenges, which emphasise the importance of international organisations to standardise the development of NDRL PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024603574.
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.