References:
1. Eray Atli, Sadik Ahmet Uyanik, Umut Oguslu, Halima Cevik Cenkeri, Birnur Yilmaz, Burcak
Gumus, Radiation doses from head, neck, chest and abdominal CT examinations: An
institutional dose report, Diagn Interv Radiol 2021; 27:147-151.
2. 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection Ann
ICRP. 1991; 21:1–201
3. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. A report of the international commission on
radiological protection Ann ICRP. 1996; 26:1–47.
4. Miller DL, Vano E, Rehani MM. Reducing radiation, revising reference levels J Am Coll
Radiol. 2015; 12:214–6
5. Hatziioannou K, Papanastassiou E, Delichas M, Bousbouras P. A contribution to the
establishment of diagnostic reference levels in CT Br J Radiol. 2003; 76:541–5
6. Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA), Regulations on Radiation Protection-
PAK/904(Rev.01); Schedule VIII, Table2: The Gazette of Pakistan, Extra, 31 st December,
2020.
7. Wall BF. Implementation of DRLs in the UK. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114: 183–7.
8. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic
and dental X-ray examinations in the UK. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 1–12.
9. Hauge IHR, Bredholt K, Olerud HM. New diagnostic reference level for full-field digital
mammography units. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2013; 157: 181–92.
10. Jarvinen H, Merimaa K, Seuri R, et al. Patient doses in paediatric CT: feasibility of setting
diagnostic reference levels. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011; 147: 142–6.
11. Nfaoui K, Bentayeb F, El Basraoui O, de Azevedo AC. Evaluation of paediatric X-ray doses in
Moroccan university hospitals. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 142: 238–43.
12. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing Patient Dose in Multi-
Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. Elsevier, 2007, 86 p. Ann.
ICRP 37(1).
13. Kam L. Lee, Toby Beveridge, Masoumeh Sanagou and Peter Thomas, Updated Australian
diagnostic reference levels for adult CT: j Med Raiat Sci.2020 Mar;67(1):5-15.
14. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2010), Comprehensive Methodology for the
Evaluation of Radiation Dose in X-ray Computed Tomography (Report No.111), College Park
MD.
15. P C Shrimpton 1, M C Hillier, M A Lewis, M Dunn, National survey of doses from CT in the
UK: 2003. Br J Radiol.2006 Dec;79(948):968-80. doi: 10.1259/bjr/93277434.
16. Muhogora WE, Ahmed NA, Almosabihi A, et al. Patient doses in radiographic examinations
in 12 countries of Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe: initial results from IAEA projects. AJR
2008; 190:1453–1461.
17. 2. Directorate-General, Environment, Nuclear Safe ty and Civil Protection, European
Commission. Radiation protection 109: guidance on diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for
medical exposures (radiation protection).[Link]/energy/nu clear/radiation
protection/doc/publication/109_ [Link]. Published 1999. Accessed September 16, 2014
18. 3. Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K. Survey of CT
practice in the UK. Part 2. Dosimetric aspects. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection
Board, 1991: report NRPB-R249.
19. 4. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Radiological protection and
safe ty in medicine: ICRP publication 73. Ann ICRP 1996; 26:23–24.
20. Fawad Yasin, Comparison of Radiation Dose in CT Examinations at PIMS with European
Commission Reference Doses. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci, July-September 2021 Vol. 17 No. 3:
216-21.
Table 1. CT scanning parameters used.
Parameters CT Head CT Chest CT Abdomen
Slice thickness (mm)
Detector Coverage (mm)
Tube current (mAs)
Tube voltage (kV)
Gantry rotation (s)
Pitch
In order for DRLs to remain relevant, they need to be periodically updated to reflect changes in
practice within the given jurisdiction. In the United Kingdom, national surveys of radiographic
facilities have been conducted every five years since the mid-1980s (14). Improved optimization has
resulted in an overall lowering of doses with each iteration of the dose review.8, 15
The DRLs are used to evaluate radiation dose parameters and determine whether the facility
radiation parameters are within the reference recommended range. The establishment of DRLs had
been proved to be useful tool in standardization and optimization of radiation doses received from
(8-13)
common medical imaging protocols . In order for DRLs to remain relevant, they need to be
periodically updated to reflect changes in practice within the given jurisdiction. In the United
Kingdom, national surveys of radiographic facilities have been conducted every five years since the
mid-1980s (14). Improved optimization has resulted in an overall lowering of doses with each iteration
of the dose review.8, 15
9. Wall BF. Implementation of DRLs in the UK. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114: 183–7.
8. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic
and dental X-ray examinations in the UK. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 1–12.
10. Hauge IHR, Bredholt K, Olerud HM. New diagnostic reference level for full-field digital
mammography units. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2013; 157: 181–92.
11 Jarvinen H, Merimaa K, Seuri R, et al. Patient doses in paediatric CT: feasibility of setting
diagnostic reference levels. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011; 147: 142–6.
12. Nfaoui K, Bentayeb F, El Basraoui O, de Azevedo AC. Evaluation of paediatric X-ray doses
in Moroccan university hospitals. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 142: 238–43.
13. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing Patient Dose in Multi-
detector Computed Tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. Elsevier, 2007, 86 p. Ann. ICRP
37(1).