Radiation doses from CT in the Sultanate of Oman

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 72, Issue NOV., 1999, Pages 1073-1077

  Goddard, C C ^a   Al Farsi, A ^a  

^a SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY   (Oman)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSIMETRY; HUMAN; OMAN; RADIATION; RADIATION PROTECTION;

EID: 0032713987     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.72.863.10700824     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Shrimpton PC, Hart D, Hillier MC, et al. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 1: aspects of examination frequency and quality assurance, NRPB-R248. Chilton: National Radiological Protection Board, 1991.
2. Poletti JL. Patient doses from CT in New Zealand and a simple method for estimating effective dose. Br J Radiol 1996;69:432-6.
3. Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. The increasing importance of X-ray computed tomography as a source of medical exposure. Radiat Prot Dosim 1995;57:413-5.
4. European Commission Study Group. Quality criteria for computed tomography, EC Working Document EUR 16262. Brussels: EC, 1998.
5. Jessen KA, Shrimpton PC, Geleijns P, et al. Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. Appl Radiat Isot 1999;50:165-72.
6. Jones DG, Shrimpton PC. Normalized organ doses for X-ray computed tomography calculated using Monte Carlo techniques, NRPB SR-250. Chilton: NRPB, 1993.
7. Shrimpton PC, Edyvean S. CT scanner dosimetry. Br J Radiol 1998;71:1-3.
8. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 recommendations of the ICRP, ICRP Publication 60. Ann ICRP 1991;21(No. 3):1-3.
9. Wade JP, Weyman JC, Goldstone KE. CT standard protocols are of limited value in assessing actual patient dose. Br J Radiol 1997;70:1146-51.
10. Shrimpton PC, Jones PC, Hillier MC, et al. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: dosimetric aspects, NRPB-R249. Chilton: NRPB, 1991.
11. Van Unnik JG, Broerse JJ, Geleijns J, et al. Survey of CT techniques and absorbed dose in various Dutch hospitals. Br J Radiol 1997;70:367-71.
12. Vade A, Demos TC, Olson MC, et al. Evaluation of image quality using 1 : 1 pitch and 1.5 : 1 pitch helical CT in children: a comparative study. Pediatr Radiol 1996;26:891-3.
13. Kearney SE, Jones P, Meakin K, Garvey CJ. CT scanning of the paranasal sinuses - the effect of reducing mAs. Br J Radiol 1997;70:1071-4.
14. Smith AN, Shah GA. A survey of routine head CT protocols in Australia. Br J Radiol 1997;70:372-4.
15. Kearney SE, Jones P, Meakin K, Garvey CJ. CT scanning of the paranasal sinuses - the effect of reducing mAs. Br J Radiol 1997;70:1071-4.
16. Smith AN, Shah GA. A survey of routine head CT protocols in Australia. Br J Radiol 1997;70:372-4.