Objective:
To determine patient, institution, and machine characteristics that contribute to variation in radiation doses used for computed tomography (CT).
Design:
Prospective cohort study.
Setting:
Data were assembled and analyzed from the University of California San Francisco CT International Dose Registry.
Participants:
Standardized data from over 2.0 million CT examinations of adults who underwent CT between November 2015 and August 2017 from 151 institutions, across seven countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Israel, and Japan).
Main Outcome Measures:
Mean effective doses and proportions of high dose examinations for abdomen, chest, combined chest and abdomen, and head CT were determined by patient characteristics (sex, age, and size), type of institution (trauma center, care provision 24 hours per day and seven days per week, academic, private), institutional practice volume, machine factors (manufacturer, model), country, and how scanners were used, before and after adjustment for patient characteristics, using hierarchical linear and logistic regression. High dose examinations were defined as CT scans with doses above the 75th percentile defined during a baseline period.
Results:
The mean effective dose and proportion of high dose examinations varied substantially across institutions. The doses varied modestly (10-30%) by type of institution and machine characteristics after adjusting for patient characteristics. By contrast, even after adjusting for patient characteristics, wide variations in radiation doses across countries persisted, with a fourfold range in mean effective dose for abdomen CT examinations (7.0-25.7 mSv) and a 17-fold range in proportion of high dose examinations (4-69%). Similar variation across countries was observed for chest (mean effective dose 1.7-6.4 mSv, proportion of high dose examinations 1-26%) and combined chest and abdomen CT (10.0-37.9 mSv, 2-78%). Doses for head CT varied less (1.4-1.9 mSv, 8-27%). In multivariable models, the dose variation across countries was primarily attributable to institutional decisions regarding technical parameters (that is, how the scanners were used).
Conclusions:
CT protocols and radiation doses vary greatly across countries and are primarily attributable to local choices regarding technical parameters, rather than patient, institution, or machine characteristics. These findings suggest that the optimization of doses to a consistent standard should be possible.
Study Registration:
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03000751.
Citing Articles
Use of diagnostic vs low-dose computed tomography in positron emission tomography-CT examinations.
Malekhedayat M, Stewart C, Chu P, Wang Y, Kasraie N, Franc B
Eur Radiol. 2025; .
PMID: 40055228
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-025-11391-w.
Computed Tomography Doses Calculation: Do We Really Need a New Dose Assessment Tool?.
Szarmach A, Sabiniewicz-Ziajka D, Grzywinska M, Gac P, Piskunowicz M, Wszedybyl-Winklewska M
J Clin Med. 2025; 14(4).
PMID: 40004878
PMC: 11856821.
DOI: 10.3390/jcm14041348.
AI for image quality and patient safety in CT and MRI.
Melazzini L, Bortolotto C, Brizzi L, Achilli M, Basla N, DOnorio De Meo A
Eur Radiol Exp. 2025; 9(1):28.
PMID: 39987533
PMC: 11847764.
DOI: 10.1186/s41747-025-00562-5.
The Impact of Radiation Dose on CT-Based Body Composition Analysis: A Large-Animal Study.
Salhofer L, Jost G, Meetschen M, van Landeghem D, Forsting M, Bos D
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2025; 16(1):e13741.
PMID: 39980200
PMC: 11842463.
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13741.
So many countries, so many customs, so many ways of using CT.
Szucs-Farkas Z
Eur Radiol. 2025; .
PMID: 39853338
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-025-11356-z.
Representative Organ Doses from Computed Tomography (CT) Exams from a Large International Registry.
Chu P, Stewart C, Kofler C, Mahendra M, Wang Y, Chu C
Radiat Res. 2024; 203(1):1-9.
PMID: 39689286
PMC: 11801243.
DOI: 10.1667/RADE-24-00178.1.
Exploring Patient Preferences for Information About CT Radiation Exposure: Bridging the Gap Between Patient Preference and Physician Practice.
Alrasheed A, Alammar A
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024; 18:1929-1938.
PMID: 39318368
PMC: 11420885.
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S466115.
Standardizing Imaging for Pulmonary Valve Replacement: Just What the (Interventional) Doctor Ordered.
Dimas V
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024; 2(6Part A):101215.
PMID: 39129895
PMC: 11307631.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101215.
Evaluation of an in-use chest CT protocol in lung cancer screening - A single institutional study.
Naimi S, Tetteh M, Ashraf H, Johansen S
Acta Radiol Open. 2024; 13(7):20584601241256005.
PMID: 39044837
PMC: 11265249.
DOI: 10.1177/20584601241256005.
Body weight and composition endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 4 of the cachexia endpoints series.
Brown L, Sousa M, Yule M, Baracos V, McMillan D, Arends J
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2024; 15(3):816-852.
PMID: 38738581
PMC: 11154800.
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13478.
Advanced Computational Methods for Radiation Dose Optimization in CT.
Rao S, Sharan K, Chandraguthi S, Dsouza R, David L, Ravichandran S
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(9).
PMID: 38732335
PMC: 11083136.
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14090921.
Influence of deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for reducing radiation dose and image noise compared to iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection for head and chest computed tomography examinations: a systematic review.
Chandran M O, Pendem S, P S P, Chacko C, - P, Kadavigere R
F1000Res. 2024; 13:274.
PMID: 38725640
PMC: 11079581.
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.147345.1.
Assessment of radiographers' knowledge about radiation doses and DRLs in computed tomography departments in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.
Aldahery S
Saudi Pharm J. 2023; 31(11):101820.
PMID: 37928978
PMC: 10622684.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2023.101820.
The variability of CT scan protocols for total hip arthroplasty: a call for harmonisation.
Ramesh A, Di Laura A, Henckel J, Hart A
EFORT Open Rev. 2023; 8(11):809-817.
PMID: 37909704
PMC: 10646515.
DOI: 10.1530/EOR-22-0141.
Complete patient exposure during paediatric brain cancer treatment for photon and proton therapy techniques including imaging procedures.
De Saint-Hubert M, Boissonnat G, Schneider U, Baumer C, Verbeek N, Esser J
Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1222800.
PMID: 37795436
PMC: 10546320.
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1222800.
Large variation in radiation dose for routine abdomen CT: reasons for excess and easy tips for reduction.
Smith-Bindman R, Kang T, Chu P, Wang Y, Stewart C, Das M
Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(4):2394-2404.
PMID: 37735276
PMC: 10957641.
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10076-6.
CT acquisition parameter selection in the real world: impacts on radiation dose and variation amongst 155 institutions.
Wang Y, Chu P, Szczykutowicz T, Stewart C, Smith-Bindman R
Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(3):1605-1613.
PMID: 37646805
PMC: 10873435.
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10161-w.
Value of deep learning reconstruction of chest low-dose CT for image quality improvement and lung parenchyma assessment on lung window.
Wang J, Sui X, Zhao R, Du H, Wang J, Wang Y
Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(2):1053-1064.
PMID: 37581663
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10087-3.
Robot-assisted screw fixation in a cadaver utilizing magnetic resonance imaging-based synthetic computed tomography: toward radiation-free spine surgery. Illustrative case.
Davidar A, Judy B, Hersh A, Weber-Levine C, Alomari S, Menta A
J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2023; 6(2).
PMID: 37458340
PMC: 10555644.
DOI: 10.3171/CASE23120.
Radiology's Ionising Radiation Paradox: Weighing the Indispensable Against the Detrimental in Medical Imaging.
Najjar R
Cureus. 2023; 15(7):e41623.
PMID: 37435015
PMC: 10331516.
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41623.