Comparison of Eye Lens Dose on Neuroimaging Protocols between 16- and 64-Section Multidetector CT: Achieving the Lowest Possible Dose

References

1. ↵
   Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345–51

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003;85:47–59

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. Committee to Assess the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR VII: health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Available at: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/beir_vii_final.pdf. Accessed September 22,2008 .
4. ↵
   Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008;81:362–78

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. ↵
   Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277–84

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. ↵
   Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:272–84

   CrossRefPubMed
7. ↵
   Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 2000;10:391–94

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. ↵
   Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C, et al. Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers. Eur Radiol 1999;9:323–28

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. ↵
   Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004;233:649–57

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. ↵
    Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C, et al. Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenology 2006;187:695–701

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. ↵
    Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Ulzheimer S, et al. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner with z-flying focal spot. Med Phys 2005;32:2536–47

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. ↵
    McCollough CH, Primak AN, Saba O, et al. Dose performance of a 64-channel dual-source CT scanner. Radiology 2007;243:775–84

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. ↵
    Moore WH, Bonvento M, Olivieri-Fitt R. Comparison of MDCT radiation dose: a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenology 2006;187:W498–502

    CrossRefPubMed
14. ↵
    Thomton FJ, Paulson EK, Yoshizumi TT, et al. Single versus multi-detector row CT: comparison of radiation doses and dose profiles. Acad Radiol 2003;10:379–85

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. ↵
    Moro L, Bolsi A, Baldi M, et al. Single-slice and multi-slice computerized tomography: dosimetric comparison with diagnostic reference dose levels [in Italian]. Radiol Med (Torino) 2001;102:262–65

    PubMed
16. ↵
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. ↵
    Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, et al. Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 2005;237:213–23

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. ↵
    Hein E, Rogalla P, Klingebiel R, et al. Low-dose CT of the paranasal sinuses with eye lens protection: effect on image quality and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1693–96

    CrossRefPubMed