Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 17;13(14):1728.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare13141728.

Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric CT Imaging: A Multi-Centre Study

Yassine Bouchareb  1 , Manar Al Kharusi  2 , Amani Al Maqbali  2 , Amal Al Maimani  3 , Hasina Al Maskari  4 , Srinivasa Rao Sirasanagandla  5 , Amna Al Jabri  1 , Faiza Al Kindi  4 , Saud Al Shabibi  4 , Saleh Baawain  3
Affiliations

Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric CT Imaging: A Multi-Centre Study

Yassine Bouchareb et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: Computed Tomography (CT) imaging is widely recognised for its high capability in assessing multiple organs. However, concerns about patient radiation exposure, particularly in children, pose significant challenges. Objective: This study aimed to establish diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for paediatric patients in the most common CT examinations to monitor and better control radiation doses. Methods: Dosimetry records from 5956 patients' scans for the four most common CT imaging examinations-Head, Chest, Abdomen Pelvis (AP), and Chest Abdomen Pelvis (CAP)-were considered. The CT dosimetric quantities (CT dose-index volume (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP)), along with patient demographics (age and weight), were collected from radiology data storage systems. DRLs for CTDIvol and DLP were determined for each imaging examination, stratified by patient age and weight groups, in accordance with ICRP recommendations. Results: The derived DRLs are presented as [median CTDIvol (mGy): median DLP (mGy·cm)]. For (<1 yr): Head: 13:187, Chest: 0.4:7, AP: 0.9:19, CAP: 0.4:10. For (1-5 yrs): Head: 16:276, Chest: 1:22, AP: 1.5:58, CAP: 1.6:63. For (6-10 yrs): Head: 19:332, Chest: 1.4:35, AP: 1.9:74, CAP: 2:121. For (11-15 yrs): Head: 21:391, Chest: 3:86, AP: 4.1:191, CAP: 3:165. We observed that both the CTDIvol and DLP DRL values increase with patient age. Weight-based DRLs follow similar trends for CTDIvol, while DLP values show noticeable variations in Chest and AP examinations. Conclusions: The study findings highlight the need for review and optimisation of certain scanning protocols, particularly for chest and AP examinations. The derived DRLs are consistent with findings from other studies. The study recommends establishing national paediatric DRLs to enhance radiology practice across the country and ensure adherence to international safety standards.

Keywords: CTDIvol; DLP; computed tomography; diagnostic reference level; paediatric.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bar charts of the minimum, median, maximum CTDIvol, and DLP for Head, Chest, AP, and CAP CT examinations for different age groups. Numeric values in each bar represent minimum (bottom), median (middle), and maximum (top) value.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Bar charts of the minimum, median, maximum CTDIvol, and DLP for Head, Chest, AP, and CAP CT examinations for different age groups. Numeric values in each bar represent minimum (bottom), median (middle), and maximum (top) value.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bar charts of the minimum, median, maximum CTDIvol, and DLP for Head, Chest, AP, and CAP CT examinations for the different weight groups. Numeric values in each bar represent minimum (bottom), median (middle), and maximum (top) value.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bar charts of the minimum, median, maximum CTDIvol, and DLP for Head, Chest, AP, and CAP CT examinations for the different weight groups. Numeric values in each bar represent minimum (bottom), median (middle), and maximum (top) value.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Al Mahrooqi K.M.S., Ng C.K.C., Sun Z. Pediatric Computed Tomography Dose Optimization Strategies: A Literature Review. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 2015;46:241–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2015.03.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abalo K.D., Rage E., Leuraud K., Richardson D.B., Le Pointe H.D., Laurier D., Bernier M.O. Early life ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risks: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr. Radiol. 2021;51:45–56. doi: 10.1007/s00247-020-04803-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Forghani N., Cohen R.A., Abbott M.B. Radiation risks of CT scans. Pediatr. Rev. 2006;27:79. doi: 10.1542/pir.27.2.79. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith-Bindman R., Wang Y., Nelson T.R., Moghadassi M., Wilson N., Gould R., Seibert A., Boone J.M., Krishnam M., Lamba R., et al. Predictors of CT radiation dose and their effect on patient care: A comprehensive analysis using automated data. Radiology. 2017;282:182–193. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151391. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kutanzi K.R., Lumen A., Koturbash I., Miousse I.R. Pediatric Exposures to Ionizing Radiation: Carcinogenic Considerations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2016;28:1057. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13111057. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources