Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 705

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates

Open access
Hausleiter, Jörg, Meyer, Tanja, Hadamitzky, Martin, Huber, Ester, Zankl, Maria, Martinoff, Stefan, Kastrati, Adnan, Schömig, Albert·2006·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Multislice computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a promising technology for imaging patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Compared with 16-slice CTA, the improved spatial and temporal resolution of 64-slice CTA (0.6- versus 1.0-mm slice thickness and 330- versus 420-ms gantry rotation time) is associated with an increase in radiation dose. The objective of this retrospective investigation was to compare the estimated dose received during 16- and 64-slice CTA in daily practice and to investigate the impact of different scan protocols on dose and image quality. Methods and Results— Radiation dose was estimated for 1035 patients undergoing coronary CTA. Scanning algorithms with and without an ECG-dependent dose modulation and with a reduced tube voltage were investigated on dose estimates and image quality. In the entire patient cohort, radiation dose estimates were 6.4±1.9 and 11.0±4.1 mSv for 16- and 64-slice CTA, respectively ( P <0.01). The reduction in radiation dose estimates ranged between 37% and 40% and between 53% and 64% with the use of ECG-dependent dose modulation and with the combined use of the dose modulation and a reduced tube voltage, respectively. The reduction in dose estimates was not associated with a reduction in diagnostic image quality as assessed by the signal-to-noise ratio and by the frequency of coronary segments with diagnostic image quality. Conclusions— The increase in spatial and temporal resolution with 64-slice CTA is associated with an increased radiation dose for coronary CTA. Dose-saving algorithms are very effective in reducing radiation exposure and should be used whenever possible.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.105.602490

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 705

Metadata

Authors
Hausleiter, J., Meyer, T., Hadamitzky, M., Huber, E., Zankl, M., Martinoff, S., Kastrati, A., & Schömig, A.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2006-03-14
Volume
113
Issue
10
Pages
1305-1310
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2039011007
Cited by
705
References
0
FWCI
71.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.105.602490
The paper
Hausleiter, J., Meyer, T., Hadamitzky, M., Huber, E., Zankl, M., Martinoff, S., Kastrati, A., & Schömig, A. (2006). Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.105.602490

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.