Numerous articles have been published on the evaluation of computed tomographic (CT) technology and its applications. However, to our knowledge, there are no specific guidelines or recommendations for describing CT technique, which is important because of the magnitude of clinical applications and the contribution of CT to radiation dose (1). In this editorial, we will discuss the need for a standardized nomenclature and a uniform presentation of CT scanning parameters and contrast material administration protocols. We will also discuss the reasons for the lack of such standardization in scientific articles and propose a systematic method of standardization.
There are considerable variations in the nomenclature and descriptions of scanning parameters and contrast material administration protocols. Such variability for important scanning techniques creates confusion and stresses the need for standardization. We believe that a standardized nomenclature and a uniform description of CT scanning techniques are important for several reasons.
First, the use of conflicting nomenclature and inconsistent or incomplete descriptions of scanning parameters can affect the reproducibility of validation studies performed in different settings or centers. Validation studies are important components of the scientific assessment of any given technique or clinical trial.
Second, the lack of a standardized presentation of the scanning protocols can convey inappropriate information to radiologists, technologists, or medical physicists, who are responsible for developing the CT protocols for their scanners. The use of a standardized nomenclature and uniform description of scanning protocols may help create homogeneity between scanning protocols that are used at different CT centers. This is an important aspect of multi-detector row CT scanning because of the large variability among different CT centers (2).
Because a standardized nomenclature can help researchers avoid the use of several confusing proprietary terms, it may become easier for radiologists to adapt the various scanning protocols presented in scientific articles to their clinical practice. Furthermore, with the constant evolution of multi-detector row CT technology, newer applications are being described and involve a greater degree of complexity that may be simplified with standardization (3).
Finally, we believe that a standardized nomenclature and uniform presentation of CT scanning protocols can help radiology personnel estimate the radiation dose that is associated with CT.
Unfortunately, despite an increasing consensus over the risks associated with radiation dose, the authors of many scientific articles on CT (with the exception of articles related to radiation dose) do not explicitly mention the radiation dose that is associated with their protocols. In this respect, standardization can help readers to compare published scanning protocols with their own protocols and, if needed, to adapt their protocols according to those in a peer-reviewed study for managing radiation dose.
It is important, however, to understand that standardization systems may rapidly become obsolete as a result of the rapidly evolving nature of CT technology.