BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2004) 77, 472-478
© 2004 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/21927258

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Yates, S J
Right arrow Articles by Goldstone, K E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yates, S J
Right arrow Articles by Goldstone, K E

Effect of multislice scanners on patient dose from routine CT examinations in East Anglia

S J Yates, MSc L C Pike, BSc and K E Goldstone, MSc, FIPEM

East Anglian Regional Radiation Protection Service, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK



View larger version (38K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Beam collimation in single-slice and multislice CT. (a) In a well-collimated single-slice system, a 5 mm slice width is achieved by irradiating approximately 5 mm of the single 10 mm wide detector. (b) In a multislice system used to acquire four 1.25 mm slices, the shape of the beam profile means that more than 5 mm of the detector must be irradiated in order to ensure that the four detectors are irradiated to uniform intensity.

 


View larger version (52K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Mean effective doses for each scanner, for each examination category. Scanners are anonymously identified by the letters A to L, according to the order in which they appear in Figure 3Go. Varying numbers of scanners contributed data to the different examination categories. Error bars represent the standard error of each mean.

 


View larger version (45K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Mean relative effective doses (averaged across all examinations) for each scanner in the 2002 audit. Error bars represent the standard error of each mean.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2004 by the British Institute of Radiology.