CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Radiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesRadiology practices and education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Radiation dose metrics in multidetector computed tomography examinations: A multicentre retrospective study from seven tertiary care hospitals in Kerala, South India

Open access
Varghese, Binoj, Kandanga, Indu, Puthussery, Paul, Vijayan, Dhanesh, Babu, S P Harish, Aneesh, M K, Noufal, Muhammad, Binu, E V, Babu, Arun C, James, Sheen M, Kumar, Siva·2018·Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging
DOI 10.4103/ijri.ijri_394_17PMC PMC6038221
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Background: Presently, computed tomography (CT) is the most important source of medical radiation exposure. CT radiation doses vary considerably across institutions depending on the protocol and make of equipment. India does not yet have national or region-specific CT diagnostic reference levels. Aim: To evaluate radiation doses of consecutive multidetector CT (MDCT) examinations based on anatomic region, performed in 1 month, collected simultaneously from seven tertiary care hospitals in Kerala. Settings and Design: Descriptive study. Materials and Methods: We collected the CT radiation dose data of examinations from the seven collaborating tertiary care hospitals in Kerala, performed with MDCT scanners of five different makes. The data included anatomic region, number of phases, CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), and effective dose (ED) of each examinations and patient demographic data. Statistical Analysis: We calculated the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the CTDIvol, DLP, and ED according to anatomic region. We made descriptive comparisons of these results with corresponding data from other countries. Results: Of 3553 patients, head was the most frequently performed examination (60%), followed by abdomen (19%). For single-phase head examinations, 75th percentile of CTDIvolwas 68.1 mGy, DLP 1120 mGy-cm, and ED 2.1 mSv. The 75th percentiles of CTDIvol, DLP, and ED for single-phase abdomen examinations were 10.6, 509.3, and 7.7, and multiphase examinations were 14.6, 2666.9, and 40.8; single-phase chest examinations were 23.4, 916.7, and 13.38, and multiphase examinations were 19.9, 1737.6, and 25.36; single-phase neck were 24.9, 733.6, and 3.814, and multiphase neck were 24.9, 2076, and 10.79, respectively. Conclusion: This summary CT radiation dose data of most frequently performed anatomical regions could provide a starting point for institutional analysis of CT radiation doses, which in turn leads to meaningful optimization of 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/ijri.ijri_394_17

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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 [9]

    The Results (page unavailable) say the study’s head DRL was comparable to the University of California study, while its chest, abdomen, and multiphase-neck DRLs were considerably higher—not lower. The Conclusion says a national CT-dose benchmark for India was anticipated in the future, rather than reporting that these DRLs fell below one. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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 [9]

    The Results report that this paper's diagnostic reference levels for chest, abdomen, and multiphase neck CT were considerably higher than those in the University of California study, while head CT levels were comparable. That contradicts attributing the lowest radiation exposure across both dose descriptors to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Studies in Portugal reported CTDIvol 18 mGy and DLP 800 mGy·cm.

    “studies conducted in Portugal (CTDIvol: 18 mGy, DLP: 800 mGy·cm) and Japan (CTDIvol: 18.2 mGy, DLP: 870.9 mGy·cm) reflect significantly higher dose levels. 9 14”

    From Establishing Diagnostic Reference Level for Adult Abdomen and Pelvis CT Scans: A Benchmarking Study across BMI Groups (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results section says the authors compared their Kerala dose data with data from other countries, but the passages in our copy do not identify Portugal or report the attributed CTDIvol of 18 mGy and DLP of 800 mGy·cm. Searches for Portugal and the specific values found no passage establishing them; the table contents are not present in the retrieved text. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. International Electrotechnical Commission, 2002, Medical Electrical Equipment. Part 2–44: Particular requirements for the safety of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. 2.1
  2. Radiological Protection and Safety in Medicine, 1996, ICRP publication 73, Ann ICRP, 26, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Varghese, B., Kandanga, I., Puthussery, P., Vijayan, D., Babu, S. P. H., Aneesh, M. K., Noufal, M., Binu, E. V., Babu, A. C., James, S. M., & Kumar, S.
Affiliations
  • Amala Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
  • Department of Radiodiagnosis, Govt Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India
  • Travancore medicity medical College hospital (IN)
  • Baby Memorial Hospital (IN)
  • Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute (IN)
  • Star Care Hospital, Kozhikode, Kerala, India
  • Department of Radiodiagnosis, Daya Hospital, Thrissur, Kerala, India
  • Department of Radiodiagnosis, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, India
Corresponding author
Varghese, Binoj
ORCID
Varghese, Binoj
Venue
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging
Publisher
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Published
2018-04
Volume
28
Issue
02
Pages
250-257
ISSN
  • 0970-2016 (ISSN-L)
  • 0971-3026
  • 1998-3808
DOI
10.4103/ijri.ijri_394_17
PMC
PMC6038221
OpenAlex
W2811053745
Cited by
12
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Indian journal of radiology and imaging - new series/Indian journal of radiology and imaging/Indian Journal of Radiology & Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
multidetector computed tomography, CT radiation dose, diagnostic reference levels, volume CT dose index, dose-length product, effective dose, head CT, abdominal CT, chest CT, neck CT, dose optimization, Kerala, tertiary care hospital, patient demographics

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