1. Berrington de Gonzalez, A, Mahesh, M, Kim, KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071–2077.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements . Report No. 184—Medical Radiation Exposure of Patients in the United States; 2019:2.
Google Scholar3. Shrimpton, PC, Hillier, MC, Meeson, S, Golding, SJ. Dose From Computed Tomography (CT) Examinations in the UK – 2011 Review. Public Health England; 2014.
Google Scholar4. European Society for Radiology . Summary of the European directive 2013/59/Eurotom: essentials for health professionals in radiology. 2015. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13244-015-0410-4. Accessed 2020.
Google Scholar5. American Association of Physicists in Medicine . The Measurement, Reporting and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2008.
Google Scholar6. Government of Canada. Safety Code 35: Safety Procedures for the Installation, Use and Control of X-ray Equipment in Large Medical Radiological Facilities. 2008.
Google Scholar7. Martin, CJ, Huda, W. Intercomparison of patient CTDI surveys in three countries. Radiat Protect Dosmest. 2013;153(4):431–440.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Health Canada . Canadian Computed Tomography Survey: National Diagnostic Reference Levels. Health Canada; 2016.
Google Scholar9. Ferderber, ML, Doyle, TE, Samavi, R, Koff, D. An environmental scan of the national and provincial diagnostic reference levels in Canada for common adult computed tomography scans. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2019;70(2):119–124.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals10. MacGregor, K, Li, I, Dowdell, T, Gray, BG. Identifying institutional diagnostic reference levels for CT with radiation dose index monitoring software. Radiology. 2015;276(3):507–517.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Nassiri, MA, Rouleau, M, Despres, P. CT dose reduction: approaches, strategies and results from a province-wide program in Quebec. J Radiol Prot. 2016;36(4):346–362.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Nassiri, A, Rochaix, L. Revisiting physicians’ financial incentives in Quebec: a panel system approach. Health Econ. 2006;15(6):49–64.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. Heliou, R, Normandeau, L, Beaudoin, G. Towards dose reduction in CT: patient radiation dose assessment for CT examinations at university health center in Canada and comparison with national diagnostic reference levels. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012;148(4):202–210.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Tonkopi, E, Duffy, S, Abdolell, M, Manos, D. Diagnostic reference levels and monitoring practice can help reduce patient dose from CT examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):1073–1081.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Dumaine, CS, Leswick, DA, Fladeland, DA, Lim, HJ, Toews, LJ. Changing radiation dose from diagnostic computed tomography examinations in Saskatchewan. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2012;63(3):183–191.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals16. Smith-Bindman, R, Wang, Y, Chu, P, et al. International variation in radiation dose for computed tomography examinations: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019;364(1):k4931.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–1499.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Kanal, K, Butler, P, Sengupta, D, et al. U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology. 2017;284(1):120–133.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Public Health England . Guidance: National Diagnostic Reference Levels (nDRLs) from 19 August 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diagnostic-radiology-national-diagnostic-reference-levels-ndrls/ndrl. Accessed 2020.
Google Scholar20. Roch, P, Célier, D, Dessaud, C, Etard, C, Rehani, MM. Long-term experience and analysis of data on diagnostic reference levels: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(2):1127–1136.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Zhang, D, Savage, CA, Li, X, Liu, B. Data-driven CT protocol review and management—experience from a large academic hospital. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(3):267–272.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Grimes, J, Leng, S, Zhang, Y, Vrieze, T, McCollough, C. Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(5):523–533.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline