ReviewJournal of medical physics
National Diagnostic Reference Levels in General Radiography: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of medical physics. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this scoping review was to explore the state of proposed and established national diagnostic reference levels (NDRLs) in general radiography. It examined survey harmonization, radiological examinations, doses, and 20-year international trends in NDRLs. It also highlights NDRL survey strategies for dose optimization. A scoping review of the literature was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in gray literature and electronic databases such as ScienceDirect, PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, and MEDLINE for NDRLs in general radiography for papers published from January 01, 1990, to April 20, 2024. A total of 4932 studies were identified with 22 articles selected for review. These articles were those based on an adult-human dosimetry survey. The NDRLs were set at the 75th percentile of 7 radiographic examinations and 13 projections. These have been presented with thematic analysis, narrative synthesis, and descriptive statistics. A consistent adherence to guidelines for NDRL surveys was observed despite methodological variations. NDRLs were less prevalent in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Chest PA and lumbar spine examinations were commonly reported, with lumbar spine LAT yielding the highest and chest PA the lowest doses. Proposed NDRLs from 2004 to 2013 indicated higher doses than those from 2014 to 2024, aligning with established NDRLs in the last decade. The introduction of quality control tests and radiographic image quality assessments is recommended to enhance result reliability and support dose optimization strategies, addressing gaps in current practices.
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.