FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2085203968> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2085203968 endingPage "686" @default.
• W2085203968 startingPage "683" @default.
• W2085203968 abstract "HomeRadiologyVol. 255, No. 3 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryEditorialsRadiation Exposure in CT: What Is the Professionally Responsible Approach?Stephen J. Golding Stephen J. Golding Author Affiliations1From the Radiology Group, University of Oxford, Oxford MRI Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxon, Oxford OX3 9DU, England.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).Stephen J. Golding Published Online:Jun 1 2010https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100449MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractWe have become accustomed to considering the cost-effectiveness of imaging when assessing its impact; is it time to ask whether radiation-effectiveness should be part of our evaluation?References1 National Radiological Protection Board. Protection of the patient in x-ray computed tomography and further statements on radon affected areas Chilton, England: National Radiological Protection Board, 1992. Google Scholar2 Hart D, Wall B. Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental x-ray examinations. Publication no. NRPB-W4 Chilton, England: National Radiation Protection Board, 2002. Google Scholar3 Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK: 2003 review. Publication no. NRPB-W67 Chilton, England: National Radiation Protection Board, 2005. Google Scholar4 Amis ES, Butler PF, Applegate KEet al.. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4(5):272–284. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357(22):2277–2284. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Patel R, Golding S. Clinical expansion of CT and radiation dose. In: Tack D, Genevois PA. Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomographyBerlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2007; 1–8. Crossref, Google Scholar7 Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KPet al.. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(22):2071–2077. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Yet al.. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009;361(9):849–857. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9 Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus Ret al.. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(22):2078–2086. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10 Rubino C, de Vathaire F, Shamsaldin A, Labbe M, Lê MG. Radiation dose, chemotherapy, hormonal treatment and risk of second cancer after breast cancer treatment. Br J Cancer 2003;89(5):840–846. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11 Breckow J. Linear-no-threshold is a radiation-protection standard rather than a mechanistic effect model. Radiat Environ Biophys 2006;44(4):257–260. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12 Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Masse R. The debate on the use of linear no threshold for assessing the effects of low doses. J Radiol Prot 2006;26(3):317–324. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar13 Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner Met al.. The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res 2007;167(4):396–416. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar14 Tubiana M, Arengo A, Averbeck D, Masse R. Low-dose risk assessment. Radiat Res 2007;167(6):742–744. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar15 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AAPM response in regards to CT radiation dose and its effects. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Web site. http://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/CTDoseResponse.asp. Published December 17, 2009. Accessed January 18, 2010. Google Scholar16 Tubiana M. Computed tomography and radiation exposure [letter]. N Engl J Med 2008;358(8):850. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17 Ware WR. Low-dose radiation exposure and risk of cancer: is the conventional wisdom wrong?. Int Health News 2008;192https://www.yourhealthbase.com/archives/ihn192bt.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2010. Google Scholar18 Dixon AK, Goldstone KE. Abdominal CT and the Euratom Directive. Eur Radiol 2002;12(6):1567–1570. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19 Schwartz DT. Counter-point: are we really ordering too many CT scans?. West J Emerg Med 2008;9(2):120–122. Medline, Google Scholar20 Toms AP, Cash CJ, Linton SJ, Dixon AK. Requests for body computed tomography: increasing workload, increasing indications and increasing age. Eur Radiol 2001;11(12):2633–2637. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar21 Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008;81(965):362–378. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar22 Boland GW, Guimaraes AS, Mueller PR. The radiologist’s conundrum: benefits and costs of increasing CT capacity and utilization. Eur Radiol 2009;19(1):9–11; discussion 12. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar23 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199904.htm. Updated February 23, 2010. Accessed February 25, 2010. Google Scholar24 Berland LL, Smith JK. Multidetector-array CT: once again, technology creates new opportunities. Radiology 1998;209(2):327–329. Link, Google Scholar25 Zoetelief J, Geleijns J. Patient doses in spiral CT. Br J Radiol 1998;71(846):584–586. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar26 Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH. Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 2000;215(1):55–62. Link, Google Scholar27 Kulama E. Scanning protocols for multislice CT scanners. Br J Radiol 2004;77(spec no 1):S2–S9. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar28 Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007;298(3):317–323. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar29 Lewis MA, Edyvean S. Patient dose reduction in CT. Br J Radiol 2005;78(934):880–883. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar30 Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: dosimetric aspects. Report no. R249 Chilton, England: National Radiological Protection Board, 1991. Google Scholar31 Shrimpton PC, Edyvean S. CT scanner dosimetry. Br J Radiol 1998;71(841):1–3. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar32 Mettler FA, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000;20(4):353–359. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar33 Hart D, Wall BF. UK population dose from medical X-ray examinations. Eur J Radiol 2004;50(3):285–291. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar34 Scanff P, Donadieu J, Pirard P, Aubert B. Population exposure to ionizing radiation from medical examinations in France. Br J Radiol 2008;81(963):204–213. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar35 Katz SI, Saluja S, Brink JA, Forman HP. Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(4):1120–1124. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar36 Meeson S, Alvey CM, Golding SJ. Justifying multidetector CT in abdominal sepsis: time for review?. Br J Radiol 2009;82(975):190–197. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar37 Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KPet al.. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 2009;251(1):175–184. Link, Google Scholar38 Huda W, Atherton JV, Ware DE, Cumming WA. An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. Radiology 1997;203(2):417–422. Link, Google Scholar39 Muhogora WE, Ahmed NA, Alsuwaidi JSet al.. Paediatric CT examinations in 19 developing countries: frequency and radiation dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq015. Published online February 11, 2010Accessed February 25, 2010. Google Scholar40 Olerud HM. Analysis of factors influencing patient doses from CT in Norway. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1997;71(2):123–133. Crossref, Google Scholar41 Scheck RJ, Coppenrath EM, Kellner MWet al.. Radiation dose and image quality in spiral computed tomography: multicentre evaluation at six institutions. Br J Radiol 1998;71(847):734–744. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar42 Task Group on Control of Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography. Managing patient dose in computed tomography: a report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2000;30(4):7–45. Crossref, Google Scholar43 Golding SJ. Multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT): the dose challenge of the new revolution. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114(1-3):303–307. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar44 Lautin EM, Novick MK, Jean-Baptiste R. Tailored CT: primum non nocere. Br J Radiol 2008;81(966):442–443. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar45 Pilling DW. Are we doing more harm than good? [editorial].. Br J Radiol 2008;81(966):441. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar46 Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RAet al.. Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 1997;202(1):139–144. Link, Google Scholar47 Raptopoulos V, Katsou G, Rosen MP, Siewert B, Goldberg SN, Kruskal JB. Acute appendicitis: effect of increased use of CT on selecting patients earlier. Radiology 2003;226(2):521–526. Link, Google Scholar48 National Cancer Institute. Radiation and pediatric computed tomography (CT): a guide for health care providers. National Cancer Institute Web site. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/radiation-risks-pediatric-CT. Published August 20, 2002. Updated December 22, 2008. Accessed January 18, 2010. Google Scholar49 Garcia Peña BM, Cook EF, Mandl KD. Selective imaging strategies for the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Pediatrics 2004;113(1 pt 1):24–28. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar50 Wan MJ, Krahn M, Ungar WJet al.. Acute appendicitis in young children: cost-effectiveness of US versus CT in diagnosis—a Markov decision analytic model. Radiology 2009;250(2):378–386. Link, Google Scholar51 European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Publication no. EUR 16262EN Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Commission, 2000. Google Scholar52 Office of Public Sector Information. The ionising radiation (medical exposures) regulations 2000. Statutory instrument 2000 no. 1059 London, England: The Stationery Office, 2000. Google Scholar53 Mini RL, Vock P, Mury R, Schneeberger PP. Radiation exposure of patients who undergo CT of the trunk. Radiology 1995;195(2):557–562. Link, Google Scholar54 Verdun FR, Meuli RA, Bochud FOet al.. Image quality and dose in spiral computed tomography. Eur Radiol 1996;6(4):485–488. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar55 Golding SJ, Shrimpton PC. Radiation dose in CT: are we meeting the challenge?. Br J Radiol 2002;75(889):1–4. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar56 Shrimpton PC, Jessen KA, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G. Reference doses in computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998;80(1-3):55–59. Crossref, Google Scholar57 Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Reference doses for paediatric computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000;90(1-2):249–252. Crossref, Google Scholar58 Jurik A, Peterson J, Jessen KAet al.. Clinical use of imaging quality criteria in computed tomography: a pilot study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000;90(1-2):47–52. Crossref, Google Scholar59 Royal College of Radiologists. Making the best use of clinical radiology services London, England: Royal College of Radiologists, 2007. Google Scholar60 American College of Radiology. Practice guidelines and technical standards. American College of Radiology Web site. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines.aspx. Accessed January 18, 2010. Google Scholar61 Heilman RS. Practice corner: what did the CT scan show?. RadioGraphics 2002;22(4):894. Link, Google Scholar62 Gunderman RB. The medical community’s changing vision of the patient: the importance of radiology. Radiology 2005;234(2):339–342. Link, Google Scholar63 National Radiological Protection Board. Patient dose reduction in diagnostic radiology Chilton, England: National Radiological Protection Board, 1990. Google Scholar64 Clarke JC, Cranley K, Kelly BE, Bell K, Smith PH. Provision of MRI can significantly reduce CT collective dose. Br J Radiol 2001;74(886):926–931. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar65 Golding SJ. Improving patient throughput in MRI: a radical approach. In: Rinck PA. A rational approach to MR imagingOxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1995. Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived February 26, 2010; final version accepted March 1.Published online: June 2010Published in print: June 2010 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByRadiología, Vol. 60, No. 4Radiología (English Edition), Vol. 60, No. 4Heliyon, Vol. 4, No. 9Pediatric Chest CT Diagnostic Reference Ranges: Development and ApplicationKeith J. Strauss, Marilyn J. Goske, Alexander J. Towbin, Debapriya Sengupta, Michael J. Callahan, Kassa Darge, Daniel J. Podberesky, Donald P. Frush, Charles Maxfield, Sjirk J. Westra, Jeffrey S. Prince, Huimin Wu, Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield, 17 February 2017 | Radiology, Vol. 284, No. 1Clinical Radiology, Vol. 72, No. 9European Journal of Radiology Open, Vol. 3Evaluating the appropriateness of dosimetric indices in body CT21 November 2014 | La radiologia medica, Vol. 120, No. 5The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 88, No. 1046Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 44, No. S3European Radiology, Vol. 24, No. 1System for Verifiable CT Radiation Dose Optimization Based on Image Quality. Part I. Optimization ModelDavid B. Larson, , Lily L. Wang, , Daniel J. Podberesky, , and Marilyn J. Goske, 1 October 2013 | Radiology, Vol. 269, No. 1System for Verifiable CT Radiation Dose Optimization Based on Image Quality. Part II. Process Control SystemDavid B. Larson, , Remo J. Malarik, , Seth M. Hall, , and Daniel J. Podberesky, 1 October 2013 | Radiology, Vol. 269, No. 1Diagnostic Reference Ranges for Pediatric Abdominal CTMarilyn J. Goske, , Keith J. Strauss, , Laura P. Coombs, , Keith E. Mandel, , Alexander J. Towbin, , David B. Larson, , Michael J. Callahan, , Kassa Darge, , Daniel J. Podberesky, , Donald P. Frush, , Sjirk J. Westra, , and Jeffrey S. Prince, 1 July 2013 | Radiology, Vol. 268, No. 1European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 82, No. 11Ciencia & Tecnología para la Salud Visual y Ocular, Vol. 11, No. 1Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 42, No. 1Academic Radiology, Vol. 19, No. 1Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 9The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 85, No. 1011Emergency Radiology, Vol. 18, No. 2European Journal of Internal Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 6Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 8, No. 7Recommended Articles External Factors That Influence the Practice of Radiology: Proceedings of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology MeetingRadiology2017Volume: 283Issue: 3pp. 845-853Use of Clinical Data to Predict Appendicitis in Patients with Equivocal US FindingsRadiology2016Volume: 280Issue: 2pp. 557-567Can Patient Triaging with Clinical Scoring Systems Reduce CT Use in Adolescents and Young Adults Suspected of Having Appendicitis?Radiology2021Volume: 300Issue: 2pp. 350-358Short-, Mid-, and Long-term Strategies to Manage the Shortage of IohexolRadiology2022Volume: 304Issue: 2pp. 289-293Accuracy of Unenhanced MR Imaging in the Detection of Acute Appendicitis: Single-Institution Clinical Performance ReviewRadiology2016Volume: 279Issue: 2pp. 451-460See More RSNA Education Exhibits To Be or Not to Be: Appendicitis, as Diagnosed by Deep Learning Algorithms, Radiologists, and ResidentsDigital Posters2020Lumbar Spine Surgery Techniques And Postoperative Imaging: What The Radiologist Should KnowDigital Posters2020Right Lower-Quadrant Ultrasound Techniques, Tricks, and Pitfalls for Tenderness to PalpationDigital Posters2019 RSNA Case Collection Acute appendicitis with perforationRSNA Case Collection2020Acute appendicitisRSNA Case Collection2020Amyand herniaRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 255, No. 3 Supplemental MaterialMetrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W2085203968 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2085203968 creator A5090393149 @default.
• W2085203968 date "2010-06-01" @default.
• W2085203968 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2085203968 title "Radiation Exposure in CT: What Is the Professionally Responsible Approach?" @default.
• W2085203968 cites W131954849 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W1967820997 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W1982749022 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W1983969827 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W1990775947 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W1993809492 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W1996629030 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W1998093480 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2013414565 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2015483670 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2025142175 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2026061267 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2028608569 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2034118992 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2036026982 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2041998362 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2044529842 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2054688904 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2058792775 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2068823200 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2080356357 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2095728038 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2100533308 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2102382556 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2108494375 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2110997518 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2113419690 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2115422391 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2121571320 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2122546849 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2128289784 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2132598303 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2132944202 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2133521171 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2135924698 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2140860566 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2141262108 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2145954753 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2146770449 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2163074894 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2165941940 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2167116441 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2170260757 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2171697262 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2318087911 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2328676866 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W2331788514 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W4241137788 @default.
• W2085203968 cites W602876464 @default.
• W2085203968 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100449" @default.
• W2085203968 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20501708" @default.
• W2085203968 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2085203968 type Work @default.
• W2085203968 sameAs 2085203968 @default.
• W2085203968 citedByCount "29" @default.
• W2085203968 countsByYear W20852039682012 @default.
• W2085203968 countsByYear W20852039682013 @default.
• W2085203968 countsByYear W20852039682014 @default.
• W2085203968 countsByYear W20852039682015 @default.
• W2085203968 countsByYear W20852039682016 @default.
• W2085203968 countsByYear W20852039682017 @default.
• W2085203968 countsByYear W20852039682018 @default.
• W2085203968 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2085203968 hasAuthorship W2085203968A5090393149 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConcept C2779925993 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConceptScore W2085203968C126838900 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConceptScore W2085203968C19527891 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConceptScore W2085203968C2779925993 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConceptScore W2085203968C2989005 @default.
• W2085203968 hasConceptScore W2085203968C71924100 @default.
• W2085203968 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2085203968 hasLocation W20852039681 @default.
• W2085203968 hasLocation W20852039682 @default.
• W2085203968 hasOpenAccess W2085203968 @default.
• W2085203968 hasPrimaryLocation W20852039681 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W2049214470 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W2411274773 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W2563263950 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W2579419549 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W2902148150 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W2950418114 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W2973054149 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W3024647943 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W4253461390 @default.
• W2085203968 hasRelatedWork W4281609928 @default.
• W2085203968 hasVolume "255" @default.
• W2085203968 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2085203968 isRetracted "false" @default.

• next