Sci‐Thur PM – Colourful Interactions: Highlights 07: Canadian Computed Tomography Survey: National Diagnostic Reference Levels

Wardlaw, Graeme; Martel, Narine

doi:10.1118/1.4961767

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 3 rd quartile for CTDIvol and the effective dose values (Table 3) for the head imaging protocol (65.1 mGy, 2.83 mSv, respectively) were lower than the 3 rd quartile measured in some previous studies 19,34,35,37,39 , and higher than the 3 rd quartile measured in other studies 10,20,26,28,32,36,38,40,41,50, 52 . Similarly, the 3 rd quartile for CTDIvol and the effective dose values (Table 4) for the chest imaging protocol (16.6 mGy, 8.21 mSv, respectively) were lower than the 3 rd quartile measured in some previous studies 20, 23,35,50 , and higher than the 3 rd quartile measured in other studies 10,18,26,28-29,32,34,37-40, 52 .…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…The values are shown in comparison with other similar international studies for the same CT imaging protocols. 19 15.0 724 10.86 SWITZERLAND 2013 29 15.0 650 9.75 IRSN FRANCE 2013 26 17.0 800 12.00 ICRP 2010 15 35.0 780 11.70 AUSTRALIA 2020 50 13.0 600 9.00 US 2017 32 16.0 781 11.72 CANADA 2016 34 18.0 874 13.11 JAPAN 2016 35 20.0 1000 15.00 GREECE 2011 23 35 12.0 5.89 SWITZERLAND 2013 29 10.0 5.60 IRSN FRANCE 2013 26 15.0 6.65 ICRP 2010 15 35.0 9.10 AUSTRALIA 2020 50 10.0 5.46 US 2017 32 16.0 6.20 CANADA 2016 34 14.0 7.29 JAPAN 2016 35 20.0 7.70 GREECE 2011 23 30.0 9.10 GREECE 2015 36 14.0 6.72 EGYPT 2017 20 22.0 5.88 UK 2011 10 15.0 4.90 IRELAND 2012 37 11.0 5.46 IRAN 2019 38 12.0 5.27 TURKEY 2015 39 11.6 4.05 TURKEY 2021 40 8.3 4.40 SYRIA 2010 41 22.0 7.28 MALAYSIA 2016 51 19.9 8.40 Effective dose coefficient or conversion coefficient k=0.014 9,[17][18][19]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Establishment of national diagnostic dose reference levels (DRLs) for routine computed tomography examinations in Jordan

Radaideh

Al-Radaideh

Saleh

et al. 2023

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dose reference levels (DRLs) are used as indicators as well as guidance for dose optimization and to ensure justification of appropriate dose for a given clinical indication. The main aims of this study were to establish local DRLs for each CT imaging protocol as a reference point to evaluate the radiation dose indices and to compare our DRLs with those established in other countries and against the internationally reported guidelines. Materials and methods: 2000 CT dose reports of different adult imaging protocols from January 2021 until April 2022 were collected retrospectively at different hospitals in Jordan. Data were collected from CT scans that were performed using different types and models of CT scanners and included four adult non-enhanced, helical CT imaging protocols; Head, Chest, Abdomen-Pelvis, and Chest-Abdomen-Pelvis. Results: The average doses of CTDIvol, DLP, and effective dose were (65.11 mGy, 1232.71 mGy·cm, 2.83 mSv) for the head scan, (16.6 mGy, 586.6 mGy·cm, 8.21 mSv) for the chest scan, (17.91 mGy, 929.9 mGy·cm, 13.9 mSv) for the abdomen-pelvis scan, and (19.3 mGy, 1152 mGy·cm, 17.25 mSv) for the chest-abdomen-pelvis scan. In comparison with results from different international studies, DLP values measured in the present study were lower for the chest-abdomen-pelvis and abdomen-pelvis CT scans, and higher for the head CT and chest CT scans. Conclusions: It is very important that each country establishes its own DRLs and compares them with those reported by other countries, especially the developed ones. It is also important that these levels are regularly updated.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishment of national diagnostic dose reference levels (DRLs) for routine computed tomography examinations in Jordan

Radaideh

Al-Radaideh

Saleh

et al. 2023

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This might occur due to the well-functioning performance of the equipment and good operator skills. Table 10 shows the DRL for adult CT examinations compared to NDRL and Netherland [22], Canada [23], and the USA [24]. The DRL values for CT examination in this study for CT head, CT chest and CT abdomen are higher compared to Netherland, Canadian, and USA studies.…”

Section: Esak (Mgy) Esak (Mgy) Esak (Mgy)mentioning

confidence: 68%

“…However, the DRLs value for CT head and chest is lower than the value in NDRL. Procedure This study NDRL [18] Netherland [22] Canada [23] USA [24] CTDIvol Table 11 shows the DRL for pediatric CT examination compared to NDRL and EC [9]. The DRL values for CT head (5-14 years) in this study are higher compared to EC.…”

Section: Esak (Mgy) Esak (Mgy) Esak (Mgy)mentioning

confidence: 93%

The Establishment of Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) in the Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional diagnostic reference levels are used for quality assurance in radiology departments. The purpose of this study was to establish an institutional diagnostic reference level (DRL) and to provide a practical tool in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine. For each type of procedure/examination, it needs at least 20 patients. The patients with regular size (average body size is 65 ± 10 kg for adult patients and 15±15 kg for pediatric patients) were enrolled in this project. The 75 percentile values of doses were used as institutional DRLs. For nuclear medicine, the administered activities was based on the dose of activity to produce a good image. The DRL values were obtained for general radiography, nuclear medicine, mammography, CT examination, and interventional radiography. The DRL's result was compared to national DRL (NDRL) and values in other countries. The DRL values for general radiography in this study are higher compared to NDRL and Japanese study. The administered activities (MBq) for nuclear medicine in this study are higher compared to European Commission but lower when compared to a Japanese study. The DRL values for mammography in this study are higher compared to ARPANSA; however, they are lower than NDRL and UK studies. The DRL values for CT examination in this study are higher compared to Netherland, Canadian, and USA studies but lower than NDRL. The DRL values in interventional radiography (IR) in this study are lower compared to the IAEA study. This finding indicates that it is still necessary to optimize procedures in the future. The established institutional DRL values can be used as a tool for optimization.

show abstract

“…There are considerable DRLs and benchmarks available internationally for our comparison. (Table 2) [8,9,12,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Our institutional median values, also known as, our FRL are considerably lower than all other countries and well below our NDRL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Establishment of facility reference level in computed tomography in selective examinations in a single institution in South Australia: A preliminary study

Chau¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to 26 June 2017. Examinations were separated as contrast and non-contrast studies, and single phasic for single acquisition or multiphasic for more than one acquisition. The common CT examinations, including chest, chest abdomen/pelvis, and abdomen/pelvis were reported. Examinations such as CT colonoscopy, CT pulmonary angiogram, CT gating angiography, CT chest and abdomen/pelvis non-contrast, CT high resolution lung and CT renal colic were excluded from the study. This is mostly due to a low number of examinations and the use of different exposure factors and/or techniques. The median mean (50 th percentile), and 75 th percentile for the dose spread were calculated according to the examination. Results: There was a total of 1571 CT examinations performed between 26 December 2016 and 26 June 2017 using the Toshiba scanner in our institution. 262 examinations met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The examinations and our institutional DRLs for our Toshiba scanner (established as median value of CTDIvol and DLP), were distributed as CT chest contrast (n=67, 25.6%, 6mGy, 219.1mGy.cm), CT chest non-contrast (n=41, 15.6%, 5.7mGy, 190.6 mGy), CT abdomen/pelvis contrast (single phase) (n=49, 18.7%, 6.5 mGy, 330.5 mGy.cm), CT abdomen/pelvis contrast (multi-phase) (n=33, 12.6%, 8.93 mGy, 1037.5 mGy.cm), CT abdomen/pelvis non-contrast (n=12, 4.6%, 10.1 mGy, 289.9 mGy.cm) and CT chest and abdomen/pelvis (n=60, 22.9%, 7.15 mGy, 619.4mGy.cm). Conclusions: The preliminary data provided information that our own institution and others can use for quality improvement activities. Future research is required to allow for further analysis to include more CT examinations in various scanners.

show abstract

Sci‐Thur PM – Colourful Interactions: Highlights 07: Canadian Computed Tomography Survey: National Diagnostic Reference Levels

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Establishment of national diagnostic dose reference levels (DRLs) for routine computed tomography examinations in Jordan

Establishment of national diagnostic dose reference levels (DRLs) for routine computed tomography examinations in Jordan

The Establishment of Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) in the Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital

Establishment of facility reference level in computed tomography in selective examinations in a single institution in South Australia: A preliminary study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About