CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Radiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesRadiology practices and education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Paediatric diagnostic reference levels for common computed tomography procedures: A systematic review

Garba, I., Engel-Hills, P.·2025·Radiography
DOI 10.1016/j.radi.2024.09.058
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Previous paediatric diagnostic reference levels (PDRL) literature reviews for commonly performed procedures of the brain, chest and abdomen revealed wide DRL variation and deviation of scanning protocols across CT centres. The current review went further to determine the extent and possible factors of DRL variation in the same procedure, age or weight group, between scanners and CT centres for the standardisation of CT practice globally.Methods The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow chart was used to screen articles in Science Direct, Medline, Academic Search Complete via EBSCOhost, PubMed, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost including the Google search engine.Results A total of 6573 articles were retrieved and screened against the established criteria and finally, 52 articles were selected and synthesised narratively.Conclusion The findings of this review show variation of brain PDRLs up to a factor of 2 fold for the same examination and age group. Factors attributable to dose variations noted in this review were largely related to the setting of the scan protocols such as the use of different phantom sizes, dose parameters, and age groups. This indicates the need to standardise methods of establishing PDRLs and alignment with the European Commission and ICRP recommended guidelines are proposed.Implication for practice The review highlights different methods for establishing PDRLs and their implication which could guide radiographers and medical physicists in future PDRLs establishment for dose optimization.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.radi.2024.09.058

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For adult populations, DRL data are often collected from standard-sized patients (70 ± 15 kg), but for pediatric applications, stratification by age or weight is crucial due to rapid developmental changes influencing body composition and radiation absorption.

    “For adult populations, DRL data are often collected from standard-sized patients (70 ± 15 kg), but for pediatric applications, stratification by age or weight is crucial due to rapid developmental changes influencing body composition and radiation absorption.5,73,74”

    From Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction (2026) · cites this paper as [73]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Chodick, 2009, Radiation risks from pediatric computed tomography scanning, Pediatr Endocrinol Rev, 7, 29
  2. 2017, Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. ICRP PUBLICATION 135, Ann ICRP, 46
  3. Triantopoulou, 2020, A literature review of paediatric diagnostic reference levels in diagnostic and interventional radiology and cardiology, Hellenic J Radiol, 5
  4. Afzalipour, 2019, Estimation of diagnostic reference levels for children computed tomography: a study in tehran, Iran, 17, 8
  5. McCollough, 2011, vol. 259, 6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Garba, I., & Engel-Hills, P.
Affiliations
  • Bayero University Kano (NG)
  • Cape Peninsula University of Technology (ZA)
ORCID
Venue
Radiography
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-01
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
27-35
ISSN
1078-8174 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.radi.2024.09.058
OpenAlex
W4404066419
Cited by
4
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Radiography (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 › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
computed tomography, radiation dose, brain CT, chest CT, abdominal CT, phantom size, European Commission guidelines, dose optimization
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Reference Levels, Adolescent, Brain, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Pediatrics, Radiation Dosage, Tomography, X-Ray Computed

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