Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software
Computed tomography (CT) dose reporting software facilitates the estimation of doses to patients undergoing CT examinations. In this study, comparison of three software packages, i.e. CT-Expo (version 1.5, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany), ImPACT CT Patients Dosimetry Calculator (version...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2012
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/19866 |
| _version_ | 1848750151286390784 |
|---|---|
| author | Abdullah, A Sun, Zhonghua Pongnapang, N Ng, K |
| author_facet | Abdullah, A Sun, Zhonghua Pongnapang, N Ng, K |
| author_sort | Abdullah, A |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Computed tomography (CT) dose reporting software facilitates the estimation of doses to patients undergoing CT examinations. In this study, comparison of three software packages, i.e. CT-Expo (version 1.5, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany), ImPACT CT Patients Dosimetry Calculator (version 0.993, Imaging Performance Assessment on Computed Tomography, www.impactscan.org) and WinDose (version 2.1a, Wellhofer Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany), has been made in terms of their calculation algorithm and the results of calculated doses. Estimations were performed for head, chest, abdominal and pelvic examinations based on the protocols recommended by European guidelines using single-slice CT (SSCT) (Siemens Somatom Plus 4, Erlangen, Germany) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) (Siemens Sensation 16, Erlangen, Germany) for software-based female and male phantoms. The results showed that there are some differences in final dose reporting provided by these software packages. There are deviations of effective doses produced by these software packages. Percentages of coefficient of variance range from 3.3 to 23.4 % in SSCT and from 10.6 to 43.8 % in MSCT. It is important that researchers state the name of the software that is used to estimate the various CT dose quantities. Users must also understand the equivalent terminologies between the information obtained from the CT console and the software packages in order to use the software correctly. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T07:32:16Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-19866 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T07:32:16Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-198662017-09-13T15:59:41Z Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software Abdullah, A Sun, Zhonghua Pongnapang, N Ng, K Computed tomography (CT) dose reporting software facilitates the estimation of doses to patients undergoing CT examinations. In this study, comparison of three software packages, i.e. CT-Expo (version 1.5, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany), ImPACT CT Patients Dosimetry Calculator (version 0.993, Imaging Performance Assessment on Computed Tomography, www.impactscan.org) and WinDose (version 2.1a, Wellhofer Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany), has been made in terms of their calculation algorithm and the results of calculated doses. Estimations were performed for head, chest, abdominal and pelvic examinations based on the protocols recommended by European guidelines using single-slice CT (SSCT) (Siemens Somatom Plus 4, Erlangen, Germany) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) (Siemens Sensation 16, Erlangen, Germany) for software-based female and male phantoms. The results showed that there are some differences in final dose reporting provided by these software packages. There are deviations of effective doses produced by these software packages. Percentages of coefficient of variance range from 3.3 to 23.4 % in SSCT and from 10.6 to 43.8 % in MSCT. It is important that researchers state the name of the software that is used to estimate the various CT dose quantities. Users must also understand the equivalent terminologies between the information obtained from the CT console and the software packages in order to use the software correctly. 2012 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/19866 10.1093/rpd/ncr451 Oxford University Press fulltext |
| spellingShingle | Abdullah, A Sun, Zhonghua Pongnapang, N Ng, K Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software |
| title | Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software |
| title_full | Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software |
| title_short | Comparison of Computed Tomography Dose Reporting Software |
| title_sort | comparison of computed tomography dose reporting software |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/19866 |