In reply: We thank Lavoipierre for his response to our article.1 He brings up two main points. First, he suggests that our statement that newer computed tomography (CT) scanners emit more radiation is incorrect.2 We acknowledge that actual absorbed doses for exactly the same imaging are lower with newer scanners, but the total exposure of the population may be increasing. In the United States, between 1993 and 2006, the annual number of CT scans increased by more than 10% per year, while the population increased less than 1% per year.3 If some scans are unnecessary for safe clinical care, then unsafe radiation exposure is a consequence.
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- Gold Coast Hospital, Gold Coast, QLD.
Correspondence: gerben_keijzers@health.qld.gov.au
- 1. Keijzers GB, Britton CJ. Doctors’ knowledge of patient radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging requested in the emergency department. Med J Aust 2010; 193: 450-453. <MJA full text>
- 2. Golding SJ, Shrimpton PC. Commentary. Radiation dose in CT: are we meeting the challenge? Br J Radiol 2002; 75: 1-4.
- 3. Mettler FA Jr, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M, et al. Medical radiation exposure in the US in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 2008; 95: 502-507.
- 4. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimated risk of cancer with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007; 298: 317-323.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

