Cited by 61Radiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesRadiology practices and education

Diagnostic reference levels for common computed tomography (CT) examinations: results from the first Nigerian nationwide dose survey

Ekpo, Ernest U, Adejoh, Thomas, Akwo, Judith D, Emeka, Owujekwe C, Modu, Ali A, Abba, Mohammed, Adesina, Kudirat A, Omiyi, David O +1 more·2018·Journal of Radiological Protection

Abstract

Purpose . To explore doses from common adult computed tomography (CT) examinations and propose national diagnostic reference levels (nDRLs) for Nigeria. Materials and Methods . This retrospective study was approved by the Nnamdi Azikiwe University and University Teaching Hospital Institutional Review Boards (IRB: NAUTH/CS/66/Vol8/84) and involved dose surveys of adult CT examinations across the six geographical regions of Nigeria and Abuja from January 2016 to August 2017. Dose data of adult head, chest and abdomen/pelvis CT examinations were extracted from patient folders. The median, 75th and 25th percentile CT dose index volume (CTDI vol ) and dose-length-product (DLP) were computed for each of these procedures. Effective doses (E) for these examinations were estimated using the k conversion factor as described in the ICRP publication 103 (E DLP = k × DLP ). Results . The proposed 75th percentile CTDI vol for head, chest, and abdomen/pelvis are 61 mGy, 17 mGy, and 20 mGy, respectively. The corresponding DLPs are 1310 mGy.cm, 735 mGy.cm, and 1486 mGy.cm respectively. The effective doses were 2.75 mSv (head), 10.29 mSv (chest), and 22.29 mSv (abdomen/pelvis). Conclusion . Findings demonstrate wide dose variations within and across centres in Nigeria. The results also show CTDI vol comparable to international standards, but considerably higher DLP and effective doses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1361-6498/aaaaf8

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ekpo, E. U., Adejoh, T., Akwo, J. D., Emeka, O. C., Modu, A. A., Abba, M., Adesina, K. A., Omiyi, D. O., & Chiegwu, U. H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Nnamdi Azikiwe University (NG)
  • University of Calabar (NG)
  • National Hospital Abuja (NG)
  • Bayero University Kano (NG)
  • University of Lagos (NG)
Corresponding author
Ekpo, Ernest U
Venue
Journal of Radiological Protection
Published
2018-03-13
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
525-535
ISSN
  • 0952-4746 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6498
OpenAlex
W2793265424
Cited by
61
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Radiological Protection (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
diagnostic reference levels, computed tomography, radiation dose, volume CT dose index, dose-length product, effective dose, head CT, chest CT, abdomen-pelvis CT, Nigeria
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nigeria, Radiation Dosage, Reference Values, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Health Care Surveys, Young Adult

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