A comparative analysis of radiation dose to adult patients from two types of computed tomography scanners at a hospital in Shanghai City, China
10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2026.03.002
- VernacularTitle:上海市某医院2种类型CT机扫描致成人受检者剂量对比分析
- Author:
Yanmei WANG
1
;
Song JIANG
1
;
Yan LI
1
Author Information
1. Songjiang District Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201620, China.
- Publication Type:OriginalArticles
- Keywords:
CT;
Volume CT dose index;
Dose-length product;
Diagnostic reference level
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Health
2026;35(3):319-324
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the radiation doses to adult patients from two types of computed tomography (CT) scanners at a hospital in Shanghai City, analyze the radiation dose to patients and impact factors, and provide data for reducing radiation dose in CT examinations. Methods Radiation parameters and radiation doses to adult patients from two types of CT scanners were investigated. Adult patients aged 15-<40 years and 40-70 years who underwent head, chest, abdomen, and lumbar spine CT examinations were randomly selected to collect their scanning data. Effective doses for different scanning regions and age groups were estimated using conversion formulas and compared. Results The CT scanning data of 160 adult patients from each type of CT scanners were collected. For scanner A, the 75th percentiles of volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of the head, chest, abdomen, and lumbar spine were 45, 4, 7, and 6 mGy; the 75th percentiles of dose-length product (DLP) were 726, 143, 373, and 179 mGy·cm; the 75th percentiles of effective dose were 1.5, 2.0, 5.6, and 2.7 mSv. For scanner B, the 75th percentiles of CTDIvol of the head, chest, abdomen, and lumbar spine were 54, 6, 9, and 15 mGy; the 75th percentiles of DLP were 755, 215, 502, and 428 mGy·cm; the 75th percentiles of effective dose were 1.6, 3.0, 7.4, and 6.4 mSv. Conclusion The 75th percentiles of the CTDIvol and DLP of all scanning regions were lower than the diagnostic reference levels for both types of scanners. Except for head DLP, scanner A demonstrated significantly lower CTDIvol and DLP values than scanner B across all regions. The 75th percentiles of effective dose for head, chest, and abdomen examinations on both scanners did not exceed the corresponding values reported for patients in Hangzhou City.
