2004
DOI: 10.1002/j.2051-3909.2004.tb00006.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in CT radiation doses in Australia from 1994 to 2002

Abstract: The growth in the usage of CT scanners in Australia between 1994 and 2002 is reviewed. The parallel growth in the per caput dose from CT procedures is derived by first estimating the mean dose for broad categories of Medicare Benefits Schedule procedures and then applying these estimates to counts of the number of procedures in each category. It is estimated that the annual dose per capita from CT procedures has increased from about 0.37 mSv in 1994 to about 0.9 mSv in 2002. From 1994–2002 the growth in CT usa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In Australia in 1996, CT imaging was the largest source of radiation exposure from diagnostic radiology procedures, accounting for about 50% of the total dose 1 . The annual per capita dose from CT examinations was approximately 0.39 millisieverts (mSv) compared with 0.83 mSv from all medical diagnostic exposures 1,2 . CT imaging contributed approximately 17% of the average total annual dose of 2.3 mSv from all natural and man‐made radiation sources.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Australia in 1996, CT imaging was the largest source of radiation exposure from diagnostic radiology procedures, accounting for about 50% of the total dose 1 . The annual per capita dose from CT examinations was approximately 0.39 millisieverts (mSv) compared with 0.83 mSv from all medical diagnostic exposures 1,2 . CT imaging contributed approximately 17% of the average total annual dose of 2.3 mSv from all natural and man‐made radiation sources.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with head and neck CT, the absorbed dose to the lens of the eye is lower in SCT. Table 4 shows the effective dose in SCT and the effective doses for neck CT and VF reported in numerous publications [1,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The effective dose in SCT is 3.9 mSv, which is 1.0 mSv higher than that in typical neck CT and 3.5 mSv higher than that in VF.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Spatial Dose Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Substantial increases in computed tomography (CT) usage and population dose have been reported in the USA, UK, Europe, and Australia over the past two decades [1][2][3][4][5] resulting in governments, radiation regulatory bodies, and radiology associations and professionals highlighting the need for optimized CT protocols [6][7][8]. Establishing such protocols often involves the use of phantoms due to the difficulty of employing patients when comparing different technical or procedural factors involving ionizing radiation [9][10][11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%