4.6 Article

Diagnostic reference levels for common pediatric computed tomography studies: A retrospective study.

期刊

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
卷 215, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111372

关键词

Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs); Pediatric; Computed tomography (CT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to calculate typical values for common pediatric studies at King Abdulaziz University Hospital and compare them with other studies. The results showed that radiation dose levels in pediatric CT examinations were generally lower compared to other studies.
With the rapid increase in computed tomography (CT) examinations among pediatric patients, the concern about the effects of radiation exposure in this population has increased. Therefore, it is necessary to measure and regulate radiation exposure, which can be done using diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). This study aimed to calculate typical values for common pediatric studies at the radiology department of King Abdulaziz University Hospital Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. For a single institute, these are calculated as the median of computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol, mGy) or dose length product (DLP, mGy.cm) values. Pediatric patient data from January 2015 to December 2020 were collected, including CT examinations, dose descriptors, imaging protocols, and scanning parameters. A total of 8717 radiological studies were included in the sample. They were categorized into three age groups; more than half of the 5102 (58.5%) belonged to Group 1 (0-5 years), 1790 (20.5%) were in Group 2 (6-10 years), and 1826 (20.9%) were in Group 3 (11-15 years). Brain CT angiogram, non-enhanced brain CT, and Internal Auditory Canal (IAC) CT had the highest mean CTDI Vol and DLP, while virtual bronchoscopy contrast-enhanced chest and neck CT angiography had the lowest mean CTDI Vol. The values of DRLs in the current study were approximately lower than and comparable with those reported in other studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据