Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41817897›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2026

International survey in four European countries on diagnostic reference levels based on clinical indications in computed tomography.

Alexander A Schegerer, Kerstin Jungnickel, Michael Walz, Michael Verius, Julian Singer, Bernhard Renger, Nadia Oberhofer, Constance Müller, Roman Menz, Bärbel Madsack and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

Alexander A SchegererDepartment of Radiation Protection and Radiological Processes, Hirslanden Hospitals, Opfikon-Glattpark, Switzerland. alexander.schegerer@hirslanden.ch.
Kerstin JungnickelInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Municipal Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Michael WalzMedical Office for Quality Assurance in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Therapy (Ärztliche Stelle Hessen), TÜV SÜD Life Service GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany.
Michael VeriusDepartment of Radiology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Julian SingerMPS Medical Physics and Radiation Protection GmbH, Schwabach, Germany.
Bernhard RengerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine & Health, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Nadia OberhoferAzienda Sanitaria dell'Alto Adige, Serviczio Aziendale di Fisica Sanitaria, Bolzano, Italy.
Constance MüllerClinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Roman MenzDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bärbel MadsackMedical Office for Quality Assurance in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Therapy (Ärztliche Stelle Hessen), TÜV SÜD Life Service GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany.
Martin FiebichInstitute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, University of Applied Sciences, Giessen, Germany. martin.fiebich@lse.thm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6596-8774
Rainer EßelingClinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Markus BorowskiInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Municipal Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Babak BazrafshanIsotopenlabor & Strahlenschutz, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Josefin AmmonInstitute of Medical Physics, Nuremberg General Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany.
Christoph AberleDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Georg StammInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo collect and analyze radiation dose metrics from 23 commonly performed CT procedures, for which no national DRLs have yet been defined, as part of an international cooperation. The body region, the clinical task, and the relevant technical parameters were considered to define clinical diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). MATERIALS AND

methodsDuring 2022-2023, a multicenter study was performed in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. Healthcare providers supplied processed data from their dose management systems. The 5%-level was used to assess the statistical significance of dose differences between the countries of participants, as well as age and manufacturer of the scanners.

resultsDose metrics from 87 CT systems in academic and non-academic, public and private healthcare facilities were analyzed. Dose values from the same body region but for different clinical tasks and/or using different techniques might differ significantly. For the same procedures, median dose values varied between systems by a factor of up to 39. Approximately a third of the surveyed systems showed doses within the DRLs suggested in this study, while 6% do not fulfill any DRL. No significant dose differences were observed between systems when comparing age, manufacturer or country.

conclusionsIn this international study, clinical DRLs were suggested for the first time for many different CT procedures, including dose-intensive procedures such as cerebral perfusion or the CT-guided interventional periradicular therapy. The diversity in protocol optimization is one of the main reasons for dose variations. Establishing the proposed DRLs can help harmonize exposure practice across country borders. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In this international multicenter study, clinical task-based DRLs were suggested for 23 CT procedures to promote the optimization of the exposure practice, to reduce dose variations among institutions, even across national borders and to strengthen international cooperation among users. KEY POINTS: Analysis and differences in exposure practices in 23 different CT examinations in four neighboring European countries. Dose values for the same clinical tasks vary considerably between facilities using the same technology, but on average, not between countries. Establishing diagnostic reference levels helps to harmonize the exposure practice across country borders for frequently performed procedures.

Indexed as

Computed tomographyDiagnostic reference levelsEuropeRadiation doseRadiation protection

Identifiers

PMID41817897
PMCPMC12982727

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.