This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It might be useful to include information about the steps that patients go through to have a medical scan and why: why NPO; if drinking a fluid, what is it and why; if drinking the fluid, why wait an hour before proceeding; why undress completely removing all metals (zippers, under-wired bras, buttons, jewelry, etc); [an explanation of the use of contrast and its side effects are already covered]; if required to drink 6-8 cups of fluid within 2 hours afterwards, why; (what steps the staff takes if something goes wrong, like an anaphylactic reaction or if contrast infiltrates into the tissues?). It will help demystify the process for the uninitiated and reduce fear as I suspect many casual readers come here to find out what is going to happen to them with a scan. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved as proposed. There is a clear consensus to move this article to the more common name for the medical procedure, but there is also substantial support for splitting the article (or creating new articles) with certain materials more appropriately housed at more technical names. I encourage that solution. bd2412T 15:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong support hard to believe we haven't already done this. "CT scan" is the common name and we're doing a disservice to readers by obfuscating this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose The problem is, CT Scan is inherently medical to most people, whilst X-Ray computed tomography is the technique. Do we want an article on the medical procedure, or the technology. A similar question to should it be MRI or NMR,the same technology, and as a scientist, both come up equally. 184.108.40.206 (talk)ipuser 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The content of this article is mostly about the equipment and theory. In the domain of physics this is "X-ray computed tomography", so the title fits. I would support a WP:FORK of some of the content here into an article called "CT scan", which could cover the medical applications of this technology and follow the medical manual of style.
Changing the title without changing the content will not help readers. Different classes of readers will want the physics information versus the medical information, and putting a medical title on physics content will not serve the readers better. Blue Rasberry(talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The first line starts with "A CT scan...", and the article directly states "the term computed tomography alone (or CT) is often used to refer to X-ray CT". Changing the title will help readers... different readers may expect different titles, but the point of WP:COMMONNAME is that the majority of readers will be more familiar with the title 'CT scan'. If that's the case, why can't we write / speak the language most users are familiar with... the body of the article already uses "CT scan" quite a lot anyway, so why don't we change the article to reflect this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
LT910001 I do not dispute that CT scan is the common name for the health procedure. I dispute that this article is about a health procedure, and I believe that it would be a disservice to readers to suggest that this article is about CT scans as a medical concept.
I am not convinced that CT scan is the common name for this phenomena in the field of physics or the use of this technique outside the field of health. 80% of this article is out of scope of the field of medicine and within scope of the field of physics. This article does not follow WP:MEDMOS because it is not a health article. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply because this article's content is mostly about something other than a CT scan in medicine, and while we both agree that CT scan is a common name for a medical concept I disagree that this article is about a medical concept. If this article were about the health concept then I would support it being named "CT scan". I think it would be a disservice to readers to call this "CT scan" when this is not a useful article for someone to read if they want to know about CT scans.
Forking medical content into a CT scan article would bring a lot of clarity and do more to serve practically everyone who is coming to this article. I see no benefit in bringing large numbers of people seeking health content to this article on a physics concept. Blue Rasberry(talk) 21:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
OK Bluerasberry but please have an actual read of the article, which itself uses "CT scan" or "computed tomography" (the non-abbreviated form of CT scan) throughout the text. The article itself doesn't actually use "X-ray computed tomography" outside of the title. So it is a case of the title not reflecting the current state of the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
LT910001I grant that the Wikipedia article uses term "CT scan" but I fail to see how that is an argument to decide the title. I feel that the title and the term used in the article should match the literature of the field which is providing the content which is covered. So far as I can tell, all the support the for the use of the term "CT scan" is because that is the term in medicine and not because anyone is citing the literature in the field of physics. I know nothing about this topic. Checking the literature - here is a heavily cited review paper from the field of dirt science which uses the term "X-ray CT" to describe dirt CT scans.
Taina, I A; Heck, R J; Elliot, T R (February 2008). "Application of X-ray computed tomography to soil science: A literature review". Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 88 (1): 1–19. doi:10.4141/CJSS06027.
Until and unless medicine and archaeology can be differentiated then the medical term can be used here, but I still think it is bizarre to combine the concepts. Blue Rasberry(talk) 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Dont think we should abbreviate terms, it is more encyclopedic to say computed tomography imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
oppose as per Bluerasberry's opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
support CT scan is the common name. no need for us to be WP:TECHNICAL in an article titile (CAT scans have not been used for ~15 years btw) Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Support CT scan. The medical application of the general technology is why most people will be reading the article. The (few) physics people will not be confused. I'd rather not WP:SPLIT the article into medical and non-medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Split into a CT scan article on the medical test and an article on the physics at the current title. No opinion on which one gets the history. Yes, the medical applications will be the target of the majority of readers, and most of them don't care about the physics. The two natural audiences for this topic can be divided fairly easily and each have their own obvious natural title. WhatamIdoing, why don't you think a split is a good idea? I'd be more concerned about the audience for the medical article being confused by excess physics than the other way around. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick comment on this, beyond this specific case (on which I entirely agree with Bluerasberry). I agreed with the merger/lumper preference until recently, when I started doing some browsing on mobile (mostly while stuck at the airport). AFAIK mobile readers are rapidly growing as a percentage of the audience, and there it is much much easier to navigate multiple short articles than one long one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Support I am happy with CT scan. It is simpler and means the same thing more or less. We can than have the technical definition afterwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Support, just because CT Scan is a WP:COMMONNAME. Even well educated people may not be aware of term X-ray computed tomography while even illiterate village people do know about term CT Scan. This is my personal experience about village people, I can't give source for it. Term "CT Scan" is obviously very popular. Thank you. --Vtk1987 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisting. There is consensus above for change but I think there's also a quite correct undercurrent of disquiet.
I think we need to look at the whole gammut of computed tomography articles to come to a solution that best fits WP:AT and serves all readers adequately. At first I thought it might even need some tweaks to the policy but I think if we look carefully (and it's a complex case) the policy will probably work out fine as is.
Computed tomography for example itself currently redirects to this article, with an inadequate hatnote which is not good at all as this article does not cover for example computed tomography in nuclear medicine. The term computed tomography is a very wide one I would suggest, covering X-ray, PET and other computed tomographic techniques, both medical and other.
Good idea to have a look what else we can help fix up. However I suggest we first respect the consensus above by renaming this article and then while we're at it have a look at the whole gammut. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's let it run one relisting. My concern is that if the move goes ahead as proposed we'll actually end up with a worse setup than now, and that it may then stay like that indefinitely. Better to get the big picture sorted out while we have a team to do it. It may not work. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
at least the minority opinion was heard --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
"The equivalent dose is the effective dose of a case, in which the whole body would actually absorb the same radiation dose, and the sievert unit is used in its report. In the case of non-uniform radiation, or radiation given to only part of the body, which is common for CT examinations, using the local equivalent dose alone would overstate the biological risks to the entire organism."
This statement reflects an impossible ignorance of the issues involved. Is this provided by a CT organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibearwithme (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)