2010
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.09.4179
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How Effective Is Effective Dose as a Predictor of Radiation Risk?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
95
0
4

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 143 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
95
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Effective radiation dose from coronary CTA was calculated by multiplying the dose-length product (obtained from the scanner) and the overall organ weighing factor for the chest (k 5 0.014 mSv · [mGy · cm] 21 ) (18,19). Effective radiation dose from 480 MBq of 18 F-FDG was estimated at 9.1 mSv, using published data (20).…”
Section: Radiation Dose To Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effective radiation dose from coronary CTA was calculated by multiplying the dose-length product (obtained from the scanner) and the overall organ weighing factor for the chest (k 5 0.014 mSv · [mGy · cm] 21 ) (18,19). Effective radiation dose from 480 MBq of 18 F-FDG was estimated at 9.1 mSv, using published data (20).…”
Section: Radiation Dose To Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the use of the effective dose to state the stochastic harm to patients from ionizing radiation is sometimes criticized (Valentin, 2007;McCollough et al, 2010;Pradhan et al, 2012). The effective dose is not expressed in terms of sex and age, while the REID values vary with age and gender (Clarke et al, 1993).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the effective doses in each scanner were within the range of 4.0− 18.0 mSv reported in the literature for a full diagnostic helical chest CT examination [26]. However, it is of note that the same effective dose does not correspond to the same cancer risk [32], and this is evidenced by the significantly higher estimated whole-body risk using the scanner H1 compared with the scanner H3, which produced a higher effective dose. The higher estimated risk in female patients than in male patients is attributed to the additional risk of breast cancer together with the increased risk of lung cancer [18,25].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%