Is the radiation from a chest x-ray (CXR) considered excessive?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: June 13, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

From the Guidelines

The radiation from a chest x-ray (CXR) is not considered excessive, with a dose of 0.05 mSv, which is equivalent to a very small fraction of the mean natural radiation exposure per year. When considering the risks and benefits of a chest x-ray, it's essential to weigh the potential harm from radiation exposure against the diagnostic information gained from the procedure.

  • The mean natural radiation exposure in France is 3.7 mSv per year 1, making the 0.05 mSv from a chest x-ray relatively negligible.
  • To put this into perspective, patients would need to undergo 50 chest X-rays to accumulate a dose equivalent to less than 6 months of natural radiation exposure 1.
  • The benefits of obtaining diagnostic information from a chest x-ray typically far outweigh the minimal radiation risk, and medical professionals follow the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) when ordering imaging studies to minimize radiation exposure while still obtaining necessary diagnostic information.
  • It's also worth noting that the risk of developing radiation-induced cancers from a chest x-ray is low, and the magnitude of survival benefit from the diagnostic information gained outweighs this risk 1.

From the Research

Radiation Exposure from Chest X-Rays

  • The radiation exposure from a chest X-ray (CXR) is a concern, especially for vulnerable populations such as children 2, 3.
  • Studies have shown that CXR lacks sensitivity and is less useful in diagnosing early disease, but it remains valuable in excluding pneumonia in outpatient practices 2.
  • Alternative imaging modalities such as lung ultrasound (LUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are being explored as radiation-free options for diagnosing pulmonary symptoms 3, 4, 5.

Comparison of Imaging Modalities

  • A systematic review and meta-analysis found that LUS had a higher sensitivity and specificity compared to CXR for detecting lung pathology in critically ill patients 4.
  • Another study found that LUS had a better diagnostic performance than CXR for common pathologic conditions in an unselected general ICU population 5.
  • MRI has also been shown to be effective in detecting complications such as lung abscesses and empyema, and may be preferred over CT scans due to its radiation-free nature 3.

Radiation Reduction

  • Reducing radiation exposure is a key concern in medical imaging, especially for patients who require repeated imaging studies 6.
  • Emerging MRI and CT imaging measurements may help address this concern by providing reproducible and sensitive measurements of pulmonary ventilation and perfusion without radiation exposure 6.
  • The use of alternative imaging modalities such as LUS and MRI may help reduce the reliance on CXR and CT scans, thereby minimizing radiation exposure 2, 3, 4, 5.

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.