Cited by 44Radiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging

Predictors of CT Radiation Dose and Their Effect on Patient Care: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Automated Data

Open access
Smith-Bindman, Rebecca, Wang, Yifei, Yellen-Nelson, Thomas R., Moghadassi, Michelle, Wilson, Nicole, Gould, Robert, Seibert, Anthony, Boone, John M. +4 more·2017·Radiology

Abstract

Purpose To determine patient, vendor, and institutional factors that influence computed tomography (CT) radiation dose. Materials and Methods The relevant institutional review boards approved this HIPAA-compliant study, with waiver of informed consent. Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and effective dose in 274 124 head, chest, and abdominal CT examinations performed in adult patients at 12 facilities in 2013 were collected prospectively. Patient, vendor, and institutional characteristics that could be used to predict (a) median dose by using linear regression after log transformation of doses and (b) high-dose examinations (top 25% of dose within anatomic strata) by using modified Poisson regression were assessed. Results There was wide variation in dose within and across medical centers. For chest CTDIvol, overall median dose across all institutions was 11 mGy, and institutional median dose was 7–16 mGy. Models including patient, vendor, and institutional factors were good for prediction of median doses (R2 = 0.31–0.61). The specific institution where the examination was performed (reflecting the specific protocols used) accounted for a moderate to large proportion of dose variation. For chest CTDIvol, unadjusted median CTDIvol was 16.5 mGy at one institution and 6.7 mGy at another (adjusted relative median dose, 2.6 mGy [95% confidence interval: 2.5, 2.7]). Several variables were important predictors that a patient would undergo high-dose CT. These included patient size, the specific institution where CT was performed, and the use of multiphase scanning. For example, while 49% of patients (21 411 of 43 696) who underwent multiphase abdominal CT had a high-dose examination, 8% of patients (4977 of 62 212) who underwent single-phase CT had a high-dose examination (adjusted relative risk, 6.20 [95% CI: 6.17, 6.23]). If all patients had been examined with single-phase CT, 69% (18 208 of 26 388) of high-dose examinations would have been eliminated. Patient size, institutional-specific protocols, and multiphase scanning were the most important predictors of dose (change in R2 = 8%–32%), followed by manufacturer and iterative reconstruction (change in R2, 0.2%–15.0%). Conclusion CT doses vary considerably within and across facilities. The primary factors that influenced dose variation were multiphase scanning and institutional protocol choices. It is unknown if the variation in these factors influenced diagnostic accuracy. © RSNA, 2016

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2016151391

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There has been a tremendous increase in ionising radiation from medical procedures today than during the early 1980s, due to higher utilization and increased CT access.

    “There has been a tremendous increase in ionising radiation from medical procedures today than during the early 1980s, due to higher utilization and increased CT access [10].”

    From Adult Computed Tomography examinations in Uganda: Towards determining the National Diagnostic Reference Levels (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Materials and Methods section describes CT examinations performed in 2013, and the Discussion addresses variation in dose across facilities. Neither reports a comparison with the early 1980s or attributes an increase in medical radiation exposure to greater utilization or CT access. Searches for those historical and causal claims found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Medical exposure to ionizing radiation constitutes a significant exposure to the population in comparison to all other sources.

    “Medical exposure to ionizing radiation constitutes a significant exposure to the population in comparison to all the other sources.”

    From Adult Computed Tomography examinations in Uganda: Towards determining the National Diagnostic Reference Levels (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) discusses variation in CT radiation doses across institutions, and the Discussion (page unavailable) addresses ways to reduce those doses. Neither compares medical radiation exposure with other sources of population exposure; searches for natural and background radiation found no such comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]8. Cristy M . Mathematical phantoms representing children of various ages for use in estimates of internal dose . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rep. NUREG/CR-1159 (also Oak Ridge National Laboratory Rep. ORNL/NUREG/TM-367) . 1980. . [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith-Bindman, R., Wang, Y., Yellen-Nelson, T. R., Moghadassi, M., Wilson, N., Gould, R., Seibert, A., Boone, J. M., Krishnam, M., Lamba, R., Hall, D. J., & Miglioretti, D. L.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2017-01
Volume
282
Issue
1
Pages
182-193
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2504353110
Cited by
44
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA181191)
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (CD-1304-7043)
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 › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Keywords
CT radiation dose, computed tomography, volume CT dose index, effective dose, dose prediction, patient size, iterative reconstruction, chest CT, abdominal CT, head CT, radiation dose reduction, patient safety, automated data analysis, Poisson regression, linear regression
MeSH terms
Abdomen, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Head, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Radiation Dosage, Thorax, 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