Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose in adolescent thoracic imaging: 64-slice is preferable to 16-slice multislice CT

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 82, Issue 974, 2009, Pages 157-161

  Arthurs, O J ^a   Yates, S J ^a   Set, P A K ^a   Gibbons, D A ^a   Dixon, A K ^a,b  

^a CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE; SCHOOL CHILD; SCORING SYSTEM; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; TISSUE SLICE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ADULT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; GENERAL APPARATUS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY SCANNERS, X-RAY COMPUTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 61449204102     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/52970138     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Frush DP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS. Computed tomography and radiation risks: what pediatric health care providers should know. Pediatrics 2003;112:951-7.
2. ImPACT, Type Testing of CT Scanners: Methods and Methodology for Assessing Imaging Performance and Dosimetry. MDA Evaluation Report, MDA/98/25. London, UK: Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory products Agency (MHRA), March 1998. Available from: http://www.impactscan.org/report/MDA9825.htm.
3. Yates SJ, Pike LC, Goldstone KE. Effect of multislice scanners on patient dose from routine CT examinations in East Anglia. Br J Radiol 2004;77:472-8.
4. Lewis MA, Edyvean S. Patient dose reduction in CT. Br J Radiol 2005;78:880-3.
5. ImPACT, Radiation dose issues in multi-slice CT scanning. ImPACT technology update no. 3. London, UK: Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory products Agency (MHRA), January 2005. Available from: http://www.impactscan. org/download/msctdose.pdf.
6. Seifarth H, Ozgun M, Raupach R, Flohr T, Heindel W, Fischbacj R, et al. 64-versus 16-slice CT angiography for coronary artery stent assessment: in vitro experience. Invest Radiol 2006;41:22-7.
7. Zhang ZH, Jin ZY, Kong LY, Wang YN, Song L, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass graft imaging between 64-slice and 16-slice spiral CT. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 2006;28:21-5.
8. Thomas K, Matsumoto J, Fletcher J, McCollough C, Bruesewitz M, Gregor N. Evaluation of image quality and dose in a pediatric radiology practice: impact of 64-channel mdct (64ct) systems. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; 2005 November 27-December 5;
9. Chicago, IL. Radiological Society of North America, 2005: SSE15-01.
10. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Radiol 2001;176:289-96.
11. Recommendations of the ICRP. In: Smith H et al, editors. Annals of the ICRP. Didcot, UK: Pergamon Press 1990;21:1-3.
12. ImPACT, Siemens SOMATOM Sensation 16. CT Scanner Technical Evaluation. MHRA 04037. Reading, UK: NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, March 2004. Available from: http://www.impactscan.org/report/MHRA04037.htm.
13. ImPACT, Sixteen slice CT scanner comparison report 14. MHRA Report 06012. Reading, UK: NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, February 2006. Available from: http://www.impactscan.org/report/Report06012.htm.
14. ImPACT, 32 to 64 slice CT scanner comparison report 14. MHRA Report 06013. Reading, UK: NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, February 2006. Available from: http://www.impactscan.org/report/Report06013.htm.
15. ImPACT, CT scanner automatic exposure control systems. MHRA Report 05016. Reading, UK: NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, February 2005. Available from: http://www.impactscan.org/report/Report05016.htm.
16. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK - 2003 review. Didcot, UK: National Radiological Protection Board (now London, UK: Health Protection Agency), 2005: NRPB-W67.
17. Greess H, Hendrich E, Baum U, Anders K, Brand M, Bautz W. Daily, routine pediatric CT: examinations with automatic exposure control. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; 2005 November 27-December 5;
18. Chicago, IL. Radiological Society of North America, 2005: SSE15-03.
19. Watson S J, Jones A L, Oatway W B, Hughes J S. Ionising radiation exposure of the UK population: 2005 review. London, UK: Health Protection Agency, 2005: HPA-RPD-001.