Determination of national diagnostic reference levels in computed tomography examinations of Iran by a new quality control-based dose survey method
Abstract
National diagnostic reference levels (NDRLs) of Iran were determined for the four most common CT examinations including head, sinus, chest and abdomen/pelvis. A new 'quality control (QC)-based dose survey method', as developed by us, was applied to 157 CT scanners in Iran (2014-15) with different slice classes, models and geographic spread across the country. The NDRLs for head, sinus, chest and abdomen/pelvis examinations are 58, 29, 12 and 14 mGy for CTDIVol and 750, 300, 300 and 650 mGy.cm for DLP, respectively. The 'QC-based dose survey method' was further proven that it is a simple, accurate and practical method for a time and cost-effective NDRLs determination. One effective approach for optimization of the CT examination protocols at the national level is the provision of an adequate standardized training of the radiologists, technicians and medical physicists on the patient radiation protection principles and implementation of the DRL concept in clinical practices.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The DRLs established in this study are lower than national and international benchmarks.
“demonstrating lower radiation doses than national and international benchmarks.”
From Establishing Diagnostic Reference Level for Adult Abdomen and Pelvis CT Scans: A Benchmarking Study across BMI Groups (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Indian studies from Kerala reported CTDIvol 10.6 mGy and DLP 509.3 mGy·cm.
“Among Indian studies, the present DRL values are lower than those from Kerala (CTDIvol: 10.6 mGy, DLP: 509.3 mGy·cm) and South India (CTDIvol: 12 mGy, DLP: 550 mGy·cm). 10 12”
From Establishing Diagnostic Reference Level for Adult Abdomen and Pelvis CT Scans: A Benchmarking Study across BMI Groups (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
The present study demonstrated the lowest radiation exposure for both dose descriptors compared with modern studies.
“The present study demonstrated the lowest radiation exposure for both dose descriptors.”
From Establishing Diagnostic Reference Level for Adult Abdomen and Pelvis CT Scans: A Benchmarking Study across BMI Groups (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
The present DRL values are lower than those from Kerala and South India.
“Among Indian studies, the present DRL values are lower than those from Kerala (CTDIvol: 10.6 mGy, DLP: 509.3 mGy·cm) and South India (CTDIvol: 12 mGy, DLP: 550 mGy·cm). 10 12”
From Establishing Diagnostic Reference Level for Adult Abdomen and Pelvis CT Scans: A Benchmarking Study across BMI Groups (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Cites
Sources and effects of ionizing radiation
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2018) · Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation · doi:10.18356/f48d655d-en · Cited by 3,993 · see citing works
Sources and effects of ionizing radiation
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2011) · Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation · doi:10.18356/97887b8d-en · Cited by 1,693 · see citing works
Deak, P. D., Smal, Y., & Kalender, W. A. (2010) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.10100047 · Cited by 860 · see citing works
NCRP report no. 93: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States
Eckelman, W. C. (1988) · International Journal of Radiation Applications and Instrumentation Part B Nuclear Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1016/0883-2897(88)90020-7 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Computed tomography : fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications
Kalender, W. A. (2000) · Cited by 698 · see citing works
National 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 · see citing works
U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Adult CT Examinations
Kanal, K. M., Butler, P. F., Sengupta, D., Bhargavan, M., Coombs, L. P., & Morin, R. L. (2017) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161911 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Shrimpton, P. C., & Edyvean, S. (1998) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.71.841.9534691 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland
Foley, S. J., McEntee, M. F., & Rainford, L. A. (2012) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/15839549 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
UK 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 · see citing works
Treier, R., Aroua, A., Verdun, F. R., et al. (2010) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq279 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Tsapaki, V., Aldrich, J. E., Sharma, R., et al. (2006) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2403050993 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Assessment of a theoretical formalism for dose estimation in CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study
Brix, G., Lechel, U., Veit, R., et al. (2004) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-004-2267-7 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Roch, P., & Aubert, B. (2012) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncs152 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Parsi, M., Sohrabi, M., Mianji, F. A., et al. (2017) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.05.054 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationParsi, M., Sohrabi, M., Mianji, F. A., et al. (2018) · Health Physics · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000758 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
M., J. M., U., R., U., S. K., Shetty, L., Dabholkar, A., & Ramachandraiah, C. (2026) · Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1806868 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sohrabi, M., Parsi, M., & Mianji, F.
- Affiliations
- Amirkabir University of Technology (IR)
- Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Sohrabi, Mehdi
- Venue
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-11-10
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 206-215
- ISSN
- 0144-8420 (ISSN-L)
- 1742-3406
- OpenAlex
- W2767885796
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Amirkabir University of Technology
- 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
- CT radiation dose, CT scanner, dose-length product, CTDIvol, head CT, sinus CT, chest CT, radiation protection, CT protocol optimization, Iran
- MeSH terms
- Head, Humans, Iran, Pelvis, Quality Control, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radiation Dosage, Radiation Protection, Radiography, Abdominal, Reference Standards, Reference Values, Sinoatrial Node, Radiography, Thoracic, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Tomography Scanners, X-Ray Computed, Phantoms, Imaging
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
