. 2018 Oct 3;18(4):142–147. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.09.003

Table 2.

Studies comparing radiation doses produced by whole body computed tomography and selected tomography approaches.

Study	Study Design	Subjects number	Radiation dose		P value	Results and comments
Study	Study Design	Subjects number	WBCT^a	SCT^b	P value	Results and comments
Asha et al., 2012³⁷	Retrospective, before/after cohort study. Patients were included 6 months before and after implementation of WBCT protocol.	Totally 1280 patients; 656 patients before and 624 after the introduction of WBCT protocol	76^c (11.6%) (9.1–14.1)	122^c (19.6%) (16.6–22.7)	<0.001	Absolute risk (20%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 17–23) for WBCT of receiving a higher radiation dose (dose ≥20 mSv) was higher when compared with SCT (12%; 95% CI 9–14).
Gordic et al., 2015²⁰	Retrospective, before/after cohort study. 120 consecutive patients before and 120 patients after implementation WBCT protocol were included	240 patients, 120 patients in each protocol group.	29.5 mSv^d	15.9 mSv^d	<0.001	In the SCT group, additional CT imaging was needed more frequently than in WBCT group with a cumulative dose of 13.0 mSv/patient (p < 0.001).
Sierink et al., 2016⁷	Multi-center, randomized controlled trial.	Totally 1083 patients were included; 541inWBCT, 542in SCT group.	21 mSv^d (20.9–25.2)	20.6 mSv^d (11.8–27.6)	<0.001	Not only the total radiation exposure was lower in SCT group, but also more patients in this group were exposed to a radiation dose <20 mSv.

WBCT: whole body computed tomography.

SCT: Selected CT.

number of patients (given as median (%-IQR)) who were exposed radiation dose ≥20 mSv.

The radiation results included all diagnosing tests during hospital admission.