Role of Radiographers in Computed Tomography: Image Quality Optimization, Radiation Dose Reduction, and Patient Safety
Authors
Department of Medical Radiology and Imaging Technology, RIPANS, Aizawl (India)
Department of Medical Radiology and Imaging Technology, RIPANS, Aizawl (India)
Department of Medical Radiology and Imaging Technology, RIPANS, Aizawl (India)
Department of Medical Radiology and Imaging Technology, RIPANS, Aizawl (India)
Department of Medical Radiology and Imaging Technology, RIPANS, Aizawl (India)
Department of Medical Radiology and Imaging Technology, RIPANS, Aizawl (India)
Article Information
DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1306000052
Subject Category: Radiology
Volume/Issue: 13/6 | Page No: 787-793
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2026-05-23
Accepted: 2026-05-28
Published: 2026-06-20
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) is a widely utilized diagnostic imaging modality that provides high-resolution cross-sectional visualization of anatomical structures. Radiographers play a critical role in optimizing image quality while ensuring radiation safety. This review aims to evaluate the role of radiographers in CT imaging, with particular emphasis on image quality optimization, radiation dose reduction, and patient safety. The review is based on an analysis of published literature and clinical practices. Key techniques, including automatic exposure control (AEC), iterative reconstruction (IR), and adherence to the ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) principle, are discussed. Additionally, patient preparation, contrast administration, and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are explored. Radiographers are essential in balancing diagnostic accuracy with radiation protection, thereby contributing significantly to safe and effective imaging practices.
Keywords
Computed Tomography (CT); Radiographers; Image Quality Optimization; Radiation Dose Reduction
Downloads
References
1. Cormack AM. Representation of a function by its line integrals. J Appl Phys. 1963; 34:2722–2727. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1729798 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Kalender WA. X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51: R29–R43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:2277–2284. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Bushberg JT. Radiation dose and image quality in CT. Radiology. 2012; 262:620–631. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110779 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. Goldman LW. Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality. Radiographics. 2007; 27:1037–1050. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.274065120 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Saba O, et al. Dose performance of a dual-source CT scanner. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009; 47:27–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Hsieh J. Computed tomography: recent advances. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2015; 11:1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1573405611666150619095732 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT. Radiographics. 2004; 24:1679–1691. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.246045065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17. Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT. Radiology. 2003; 228:15–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2281020870 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19. ICRP. Recommendations of the ICRP. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37:1–332. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. CT dose optimization strategies. Radiology. 2004; 230:619–628. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2303021726 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, et al. CT dose reduction innovations. Radiographics. 2010; 30:1745–1760. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.306105519 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25. Rehani MM, Berry M. Radiation doses in CT. BMJ. 2000; 320:593–594. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7235.593 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27. ICRP. Managing patient dose in CT. Ann ICRP. 2000; 30:7–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6453(00)00011-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
29. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, et al. Pediatric CT dose reduction. Med Phys. 2008; 35:275–284. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2816108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
31. Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC, et al. Image gently campaign. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194:868–873. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.4091 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
33. Mayo JR, Hartman TE, Lee KS, et al. Minimal tube current CT. Radiology. 2003; 228:721–726. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2283020872 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
35. Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, et al. Iterative reconstruction dose reduction. Radiology. 2010; 257:32–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10092409 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
37. McCollough CH, Bushberg JT, Fletcher JG, Eckel LJ. Answers to CT dose questions. Radiographics. 2015; 35:140–153. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.351140036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
39. Davenport MS, Cohan RH. Corticosteroid prophylaxis in contrast patients. Radiology. 2019; 293:565–572. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190361 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
41. Thomsen HS. Contrast media guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16:2527–2533. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0320-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
43. Van der Molen AJ, Reimer P, Dekkers IA, et al. ESUR contrast guidelines update. Eur Radiol. 2018; 28:2840–2845. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5249-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
45. Pronovost PJ, Holzmueller CG, Needham DM. Patient safety improvements. BMJ. 2006; 333:756–758. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38931.425995.80 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
47. Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E, et al. CIN risk score. Circulation. 2004; 110:2022–2029. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000145170.83256.38 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
49. Wintermark M, Sanelli PC, Albers GW, et al. Stroke imaging recommendations. Radiology. 2005; 235:394–405. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2352041231 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
51. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70:7–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
53. Rubin GD. CT angiography. Radiology. 2001; 218:1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.1.r01ja081 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
55. Wallace MJ, Kuo MD, Glaiberman C, et al. Cone-beam CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005; 16:1235–1242. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000175330.14852.28 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
57. Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from CT radiation. Radiology. 2008; 248:29–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
59. National Research Council. BEIR VII. Radiat Res. 2006; 166:109–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1667/RR0706.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
61. Edelman RR. Future of MRI. Radiology. 2006; 239:1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391050840 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
63. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose variability in CT. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078–2086. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
65. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. CT radiation and cancer risk. Lancet. 2012; 380:499–505. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
67. Wang G, Ye JC, Mueller K, Fessler JA. Machine learning reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018; 37:1289–1296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2018.2833635 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
69. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine. Nat Med. 2019; 25:44–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- Age and Sex-Specific Normative Cardiothoracic Ratio Values in Nigerian Children Aged 9–13 Years: A Cross-Sectional Radiographic Study
- Association between Cervical Curvature and Sleep Factors among Chinese Adult Population
- The Importance of Panoramic Radiography in Comprehensive Dental Evaluation: A Case Report of Mandibular Angle Fracture