The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Helical CT of the Body: Are Settings Adjusted for Pediatric Patients?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether adjustments related to patient age are made in the scanning parameters that are determinants of radiation dose for helical CT of pediatric patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This prospective investigation included all body (chest and abdomen) helical CT examinations (n = 58) of neonates, infants, and children (n = 32) referred from outside institutions for whom radiologic consultation was requested. Information recorded included tube current, kilovoltage, collimation, and pitch. Examinations were arbitrarily grouped on the basis of the individual's age: group A, 0-4 years; group B, 5-8 years; group C, 9-12 years; and group D, 13-16 years old. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent (18/58) of the CT examinations were of the chest and 69% (40/58) were of the abdomen. Sixteen percent (9/58) of the CT examinations were combined chest and abdomen. In 22% (2/9) of these combined examinations, tube current was adjusted between the chest and abdomen CT; in one (11%) of these examinations, the tube current was higher for the chest than for the abdomen portion of the CT examination. The mean tube current setting for chest was 213 mA and was 206 mA for the abdomen, with no evident adjustment in tube current based on the age of the patient. Fifty-six percent of the examinations of neonates, infants, or children 8 years old or younger were performed at a collimation of greater than 5 mm and 53% of these examinations were performed using a pitch of 1.0. CONCLUSION: Pediatric helical CT parameters are not adjusted on the basis of the examination type or the age of the child. In particular, these results suggest that pediatric patients may be exposed to an unnecessarily high radiation dose during body CT.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Pearce, M. S., Salotti, J. A., Little, M. P., McHugh, K., Lee, C., Kim, K. P., Howe, N. L., Ronckers, C. M., Rajaraman, P., Craft, A. W., et al. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60815-0 · Cited by 3,735
Assimos, D., Krambeck, A., Miller, N. L., Monga, M., Murad, M. H., Nelson, C. P., Pace, K. T., Pais, V. M., Pearle, M. S., Preminger, G. M., et al. (2016) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090 · Cited by 1,457
Sodickson, A., Baeyens, P. F., Andriole, K. P., Prevedello, L. M., Nawfel, R. D., Hanson, R., & Khorasani, R. (2009) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2511081296 · Cited by 990
Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology
HALL, E. J., & BRENNER, D. J. (2008) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/01948454 · Cited by 915
Dose Estimation for the European Epidemiological Study on Pediatric Computed Tomography (EPI-CT)
Thierry-Chef, I., Ferro, G., Le Cornet, L., Dabin, J., Istad, T. S., Jahnen, A., Lee, C., Maccia, C., Malchair, F., Olerud, H. M., et al. (2021) · Radiation Research · doi:10.1667/rade-20-00231.1 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Paterson, A., Frush, D. P., & Donnelly, L. F.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 297-301
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W2153746053
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Helical CT of the Body: Are Settings Adjusted for Pediatric Patients? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760297
- The paper
- Paterson, A., Frush, D. P., & Donnelly, L. F. (2001). Helical CT of the Body: Are Settings Adjusted for Pediatric Patients? American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760297
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.