ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
Cumulative effective dose among 5.6 million CT exams in a multinational radiation dose registry.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectivesTo understand the percentage of patients who exceed a cumulative effective dose of 50 or 100 mSv within 1-5 years of first CT scan, while accounting for data censoring (i.e. considering patients who are no longer being followed in the study and whose unobserved exams may influence the estimates)-a major limitation of prior reports.
methodsA retrospective, multi-national study of 5.6 million CT exams in 2.8 million patients from 161 hospitals between 2010 and 2021. We quantified the percentage of exams with effective doses >50 and >100 mSv, and using survival analysis, projected the percentage of patients with cumulative effective doses above these levels at 1 and 5 years and identified relevant drivers (eg, patient size, exam type, country).
resultsA total of 189 981 (3.4%) examinations were >50 mSv and 14 906 (0.3%) >100 mSv, varying by patient age, size, and exam type. Overall, 13% of average-sized adults and 5% of average-sized children were estimated to accumulate 50 mSv over 5 years (56% and 27% of large-sized adults and children, respectively), whereas 4% of average-sized adults and 1% of average-sized children were estimated to accumulate 100 mSv over 5 years (31% and 13% of large-sized adults and children, respectively). England had a 1.7- to 5-times lower than average percentage of patients exceeding levels.
conclusionsHigh cumulative doses were not rare, particularly high in larger patients, and repeat imaging was a strong driver of these exposures. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: When accounting for data censoring, a considerably larger share of patients accumulated a high effective dose from CT than has been previously reported, exceeding radiation dose ranges associated with radiation-induced cancer.
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.