BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2006) 79, 968-980
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/93277434

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shrimpton, P C
Right arrow Articles by Dunn, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shrimpton, P C
Right arrow Articles by Dunn, M

Full paper

National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003

P C Shrimpton, PhD 1 M C Hillier, HNC 1 M A Lewis, MSc 2 and M Dunn, MSc 3

1 Radiation Protection Division (formerly NRPB), Health Protection Agency, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RQ, 2 ImPACT, Department of Medical Physics, St George's Hospital, London SW17 0QT, 3 Medical Physics Department, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK

Correspondence: Dr Paul C Shrimpton, Radiation Protection Division, Health Protection Agency, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RQ, UK. E-mail: paul.shrimpton{at}hpa-rp.org.uk

A review of patient doses from CT examinations in the UK for 2003 has been conducted on the basis of data received from over a quarter of all UK scanners, of which 37% had multislice capability. Questionnaires were employed to collect scan details both for the standard protocols established at each scanner for 12 common types of CT examination on adults and children, and for samples of individual patients. This information was combined with published scanner-specific CT dose index (CTDI) coefficients to estimate values of the standard dose indices CTDIw and CTDIvol for each scan sequence. Knowledge of each scan length allowed assessment of the dose–length product (DLP) for each examination, from which effective doses were then estimated. When compared with a previous UK survey for 1991, wide variations were still apparent between CT centres in the doses for standard protocols. The mean UK doses for adult patients were in general lower by up to 50% than those for 1991, although doses were slightly higher for multislice (4+) (MSCT) relative to single slice (SSCT) scanners. Values of CTDIvol for MSCT were broadly similar to European survey data for 2001. The third quartile values of these dose distributions have been used to derive UK national reference doses for examinations on adults (separately for SSCT and MSCT) and children as initial tools for promoting patient protection. The survey has established the PREDICT (Patient Radiation Exposure and Dose in CT) database as a sustainable national resource for monitoring dose trends in CT through the ongoing collation of further survey data.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
W. E. Muhogora, N. A. Ahmed, A. Beganovic, A. Benider, O. Ciraj-Bjelac, V. Gershan, E. Gershkevitsh, E. Grupetta, M. H. Kharita, N. Manatrakul, et al.
Patient doses in CT Examinations in 18 countries: initial results from international atomic energy agency projects
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, September 1, 2009; 136(2): 118 - 126.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. Singh, M. K. Kalra, M. A. Moore, R. Shailam, B. Liu, T. L. Toth, E. Grant, and S. J. Westra
Dose Reduction and Compliance with Pediatric CT Protocols Adapted to Patient Size, Clinical Indication, and Number of Prior Studies
Radiology, July 1, 2009; 252(1): 200 - 208.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. Sodickson, P. F. Baeyens, K. P. Andriole, L. M. Prevedello, R. D. Nawfel, R. Hanson, and R. Khorasani
Recurrent CT, Cumulative Radiation Exposure, and Associated Radiation-induced Cancer Risks from CT of Adults
Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 175 - 184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
K LEDENIUS, M GUSTAVSSON, S JOHANSSON, F STALHAMMAR, L-M WIKLUND, and A Thilander-KLANG
Effect of tube current on diagnostic image quality in paediatric cerebral multidetector CT images
Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2009; 82(976): 313 - 320.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
D HART, M C HILLIER, and B F WALL
National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic and dental X-ray examinations in the UK
Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2009; 82(973): 1 - 12.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
W. Huda, K. M. Ogden, and M. R. Khorasani
Converting Dose-Length Product to Effective Dose at CT
Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 995 - 1003.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
J A SOYE and A PATERSON
A survey of awareness of radiation dose among health professionals in Northern Ireland
Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2008; 81(969): 725 - 729.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
W. Huda, T. T. Yoshizumi, L. M. Hurwitz, and P. C. Goodman
Computing Effective Doses from Dose-Length Product in CT
Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 321 - 322.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
C. J. Martin
Patient dose studies: what should be reported?
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, April 24, 2008; (2008) ncn070v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
C. J. Martin
RADIATION DOSIMETRY FOR DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL EXPOSURES
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 28, 2008; (2008) ncm495v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
R. Sinha, C. Nwokolo, and P. D Murphy
Magnetic resonance imaging in Crohn's disease
BMJ, February 2, 2008; 336(7638): 273 - 276.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.