Background and aim: Spiral computed tomography (CT) scans, which are considered a high-contrast resolution, quick and cross-sectional imaging technique, have grown in popularity as a result of technological advancements. However, these advancements have brought with them the potential for significantly increased radiation doses to the patient. Consequently, many organizations recommended optimization and establishing diagnostic reference levels. The aim of the current study was to assess CT radiation dose and propose a local diagnostic reference level (LDRL) for the adult trunk [chest and abdomen] using CT dose parameters such as CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP) as well as to compare the practices for aforementioned examinations between two hospitals in Taif and Abha cities in Saudi Arabia. Materials and methods: Data from 428 patients (216 for abdomen and 212 for chest) who were examined in two hospitals in Taif and Abha City in Saudi Arabia from December 2022 to March 2023, are used in this study. The data for hospitals in Taif and Abha are presented as ‘T’ and ‘A’ throughout this manuscript. The parameters of exposure and slice thickness were recorded in a specially designed data sheet together with the gender, age and patients morphometric. Microsoft Excel version 2010 was used to analyze results and plot the figures. The LDRL was achieved from the third quartile of CTDIvol and DLP for each hospital and examination. Results: The average DLP (mGy-cm) and CTDIvol (mGy) for the chest and abdomen were 243 mGy cm, 5.8 mGy and 549 mGy cm, 8.6 mGy respectively. The average effective dose (ED) for chest and abdomen were 5.10 and 21.10 mSv, respectively. The proposed LDRL for the chest and abdomen were 6.9 mGy (CTDIvol), 375 mGy-cm (DLP), 7.8 mGy (CTDIvol), and 747 (DLP) mGy-cm, respectively. Conclusion: Hospital ‘A’ irradiated patients with a higher dose for the abdomen exam than Hospital ‘T’, but both hospitals agreed on the amount of radiation dose received by patients for chest imaging. The proposed LDRL for two examinations was less than the DRL obtained from the literature.
