The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Benefits and costs, an eternal balance
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) technology has changed considerably in recent years with the introduction of increasing numbers of multiple detector arrays. There are several parameters specific to multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scanners that increase or decrease patient dose systematically compared to older single detector computed tomography (SDCT) scanners. This document briefly reviews the MDCT technology, radiation dose in MDCT, including differences from SDCT and factors that affect dose, radiation risks, and the responsibilities for patient dose management. The document recommends that users need to understand the relationship between patient dose and image quality and be aware that image quality in CT is often higher than that necessary for diagnostic confidence. Automatic exposure control (AEC) does not totally free the operator from selection of scan parameters, and awareness of individual systems is important. Scanning protocols cannot simply be transferred between scanners from different manufacturers and should be determined for each MDCT. If the image quality is appropriately specified by the user, and suited to the clinical task, there will be a reduction in patient dose for most patients. Understanding of some parameters is not intuitive and the selection of image quality parameter values in AEC systems is not straightforward. Examples of some clinical situation shave been included to demonstrate dose management, e.g. CT examinations of the chest, the heart for coronary calcium quantification and non-invasive coronary angiography, colonography, the urinary tract, children, pregnant patients, trauma cases, and CT guided interventions. CT is increasingly being used to replace conventional x-ray studies and it is important that patient dose is given careful consideration, particularly with repeated or multiple examinations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 10.1259/bjr/14928972 · doi:10.1259/bjr/14928972
- 10.1007/s00330-001-1268-z · doi:10.1007/s00330-001-1268-z
- 10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1387 · DOI
- RCR, 2007, Making the best use of Radiological Services: guidelines for doctors
- 10.1002/cncr.22668 · doi:10.1002/cncr.22668
Cited by
Bolch, W. E., Eckerman, K. F., Sgouros, G., & Thomas, S. R. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.056036 · Cited by 913
Smith-Bindman, R., Miglioretti, D. L., Johnson, E., Lee, C., Feigelson, H. S., Flynn, M., Greenlee, R. T., Kruger, R. L., Hornbrook, M. C., Roblin, D., et al. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5960 · Cited by 898
Strategies for Reducing Radiation Dose in CT
McCollough, C. H., Primak, A. N., Braun, N., Kofler, J., Yu, L., & Christner, J. (2009) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006 · Cited by 842
Sgouros, G., Roeske, J. C., McDevitt, M. R., Palm, S., Allen, B. J., Fisher, D. R., Brill, A. B., Song, H., Howell, R. W., & Akabani, G. (2010) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.058651 · Cited by 552
Leuraud, K., Richardson, D. B., Cardis, E., Daniels, R. D., Gillies, M., O'Hagan, J. A., Hamra, G. B., Haylock, R., Laurier, D., Moissonnier, M., et al. (2015) · The Lancet Haematology · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(15)00094-0 · Cited by 442
Metadata
- Authors
- Dixon, A. K.
- Venue
- Annals of the ICRP
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-3
- ISSN
- 0146-6453 (ISSN-L)
- 1872-969X
- OpenAlex
- W2087044912
- Cited by
- 1,355
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Benefits and costs, an eternal balance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.09.001
- The paper
- Dixon, A. K. (2007). Benefits and costs, an eternal balance. Annals of the ICRP. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.09.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.