The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic Reference Levels From the ACR CT Accreditation Program
Open accessAbstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of CT dose index (CTDI) values reported by sites undergoing ACR CT accreditation between 2002 and 2004.Methods Weighted CTDI (CTDI(w)) values were measured and reported by sites applying for ACR CT accreditation, and the percentage of scanners with values above the 2002 ACR diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) was determined. Acquisition parameters for a site's adult head, adult abdominal, and pediatric abdominal examinations were used to calculate volume CTDI (CTDI(vol)), and the average and standard deviation were calculated by year. Histogram analysis was performed to determine 75th and 90th percentiles of CTDI(vol).Results Between September 2002 and December 2004, 829 scanners underwent the accreditation process. Volume CTDI values (average ± SD) for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2002 to 2004, respectively, were 66.7 ± 23.5, 58.5 ± 17.5, 55.8 ± 15.7, and 59.1 ± 18.6 mGy for adult head examinations; 18.7 ± 8.0, 19.2 ± 8.6, 17.0 ± 7.6, and 18.4 ± 8.3 for adult abdominal examinations; and 17.2 ± 9.7, 15.9 ± 8.6, 14.0 ± 7.0, and 15.5 ± 8.4 for pediatric abdominal examinations. For 2004 data, 23.8%, 2.3%, and 6.9% of sites reported doses above the 2002 CTDI(w) reference levels, compared with 49.6%, 4.7%, and 15% for 2002 data for adult head, adult abdominal, and pediatric abdominal examinations, respectively. Seventy-fifth percentiles of CTDI(vol) were 76.8 mGy (adult head, 2002 only), 22.2 mGy (adult abdominal), and 20.0 mGy (pediatric abdominal).Conclusions From 2002 to 2004, average CTDI(vol) values decreased by 10.9, 1.7, and 3.2 mGy for adult head, adult abdominal, and pediatric abdominal examinations. Effective January 1, 2008, the ACR program implemented United States-specific diagnostic reference levels of 75, 25, and 20 mGy, respectively, for the CTDI(vol) of routine adult head, adult abdominal, and pediatric abdominal CT scans.
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
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(1961) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.37.425.168-b · Cited by 5,868
International Electrotechnical Commission
Buck, J. (2010) · Brill | Nijhoff eBooks · doi:10.1163/ej.9789004163300.i-1081.494 · Cited by 2,747
Estimated Radiation Dose Associated With Cardiac CT Angiography
Hausleiter, J. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.54 · Cited by 1,000
AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT
McNitt‐Gray, M. F. (2002) · Radiographics · doi:10.1148/rg.226025128 · Cited by 612
Self-citationThe Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT
McCollough, C. H., CODY, D. D., Edyvean, S., Geise, R. A., Gould, B., Keat, N., Huda, W., Judy, P., Kalender, W. A., McNitt‐Gray, M., et al. (2008) · doi:10.37206/97 · Cited by 570
Self-citationNational survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003
Shrimpton, P. C., Hillier, M. C., Lewis, M., & Dunn, M. (2006) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/93277434 · Cited by 568
CT Dose Index and Patient Dose: They AreNotthe Same Thing
McCollough, C. H., Leng, S., Yu, L., CODY, D. D., Boone, J. M., & McNitt‐Gray, M. F. (2011) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.11101800 · Cited by 463
Self-citationA method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography
Shope, T. B., Gagne, R. M., & Johnson, G. C. (1981) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.594995 · Cited by 435
Dose Reduction in Pediatric CT: A Rational Approach
Boone, J. M., Geraghty, E. M., Seibert, J. A., & Wootton‐Gorges, S. L. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2282020471 · Cited by 253
Raff, G. L. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.814 · Cited by 233
Rothenberg, L. N., & Pentlow, K. S. (1992) · Radiographics · doi:10.1148/radiographics.12.6.1439023 · Cited by 192
McCollough, C. H., Bruesewitz, M. R., McNitt‐Gray, M. F., et al. (2004) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1769632 · Cited by 171
Self-citationUK population dose from medical X-ray examinations
Hart, D. B., & Wall, B. F. (2003) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/s0720-048x(03)00178-5 · Cited by 169
Treier, R., Aroua, A., Verdun, F. R., et al. (2010) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq279 · Cited by 143
Tsapaki, V., Aldrich, J. E., Sharma, R., et al. (2006) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2403050993 · Cited by 141
Reference Values for Diagnostic Radiology: Application and Impact
Gray, J. E., Archer, B. R., Butler, P. F., et al. (2005) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2352020016 · Cited by 129
Specification and Acceptance Testing of Computed Tomography Scanners
Lin, P. P., Beck, T., Borras, C., et al. (1993) · doi:10.37206/38 · Cited by 120
Reference Doses for Paediatric Computed Tomography
Shrimpton, P. C., & Wall, B. F. (2000) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033130 · Cited by 119
Computed Tomography Dose Assessment - A Practical Approach
Leitz, W., Axelsson, B., & Szendrö, G. (1995) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a082564 · Cited by 114
CT DOSE: HOW TO MEASURE, HOW TO REDUCE
McCollough, C. H. (2008) · Health Physics · doi:10.1097/01.hp.0000326343.35884.03 · Cited by 95
Self-citationRadiation Exposure in Computed Tomography
Nagel, H. D., & Huda, W. (2002) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1496102 · Cited by 88
Standardized Methods for Measuring Diagnostic X-Ray Exposures
Chu, R. Y. L., Fisher, J., Archer, B. R., Conway, B. J., Goodsitt, M. M., Glaze, S. A., Gray, J. E., & Strauss, K. J. (1990) · doi:10.37206/30 · Cited by 76
Diagnostic medical exposures in the U.K.
Shrimpton, P. C., Wall, B. F., & Hart, D. B. (1999) · Applied Radiation and Isotopes · doi:10.1016/s0969-8043(98)00028-1 · Cited by 62
Muhogora, W. E., Ahmed, N. A., Beganović, A., et al. (2009) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp144 · Cited by 57
Adult reference levels in diagnostic and interventional radiology for temporary use in Switzerland
Aroua, A. (2004) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/nch343 · Cited by 51
The development of a diagnostic reference level on patient dose for CT examination in Korea
Cho, P., Seo, B., Choi, T., et al. (2007) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncm463 · Cited by 14
Nationwide Evaluation of X-Ray Trends
Spelic, D. C. (2008) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.11.003 · Cited by 14
Measurements of computed tomography x‐ray fields utilizing the partial volume effect
Jucius, R. A., & Kambic, G. X. (1980) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.594696 · Cited by 13
Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography. 2nd ed.
(2001) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2213012558 · Cited by 2
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liang, C. R., Chen, P. X. H., Kapur, J., Ong, M. K. L., Quek, S. T., & Kapur, S. C. (2017) · Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences · doi:10.1002/jmrs.210 · Cited by 33
“scanning parameters and to avoid unnecessarily high doses being delivered.(13) In addition, it is also important to ensure that similar diagnostic quality images are being produced across the CT systems and the DRLs produced by each CT system are within the institutional limits.”
BackgroundGarba, I., & Engel-Hills, P. (2025) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2024.09.058 · Cited by 4
Masoomi, M., Al-Kandari, L., Al-Shammeri, I., Elrahman, H., & Al-Shammeri, J. (2023) · BJR|Open · doi:10.1093/bjro/tzae032 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- McCollough, C., Branham, T., Herlihy, V., Bhargavan, M., Robbins, L., Bush, K., McNitt-Gray, M., Payne, J. T., Ruckdeschel, T., Pfeiffer, D., Cody, D., & Zeman, R.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- American College of Radiology (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- Digital Research Alliance of Canada (CA)
- Boulder Community Hospital (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- George Washington University Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- McCollough, Cynthia
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 795-803
- ISSN
- 1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088637013
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Keywords
- diagnostic reference levels, CT dose index, CT radiation dose, head CT, abdominal CT, pediatric CT, radiation dose reduction
- MeSH terms
- Abdomen, Accreditation, Adult, Age Factors, Child, Child, Preschool, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Head, Humans, Male, Radiation Dosage, Radiation Protection, Radiography, Abdominal, Radiometry, Reference Values, Retrospective Studies, Societies, Medical, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation, Safety Management, Risk Assessment
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
