Literature DB >> 15758190

Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact.

Joel E Gray1, Benjamin R Archer, Priscilla F Butler, Barry B Hobbs, Fred A Mettler, Robert J Pizzutiello, Beth A Schueler, Keith J Strauss, Orhan H Suleiman, Martin J Yaffe.   

Abstract

Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance. (c) RSNA, 2005

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15758190     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2352020016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  26 in total

1.  Effective dose delivered by conventional radiology to Aosta Valley population between 2002 and 2009.

Authors:  F Zenone; S Aimonetto; P Catuzzo; A Peruzzo Cornetto; P Marchisio; M Natrella; A M Rosanò; T Meloni; M Pasquino; S Tofani
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  National reference doses for dental cephalometric radiography.

Authors:  J R Holroyd
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  The federal government's oversight of CT safety: regulatory possibilities.

Authors:  H Benjamin Harvey; Pari V Pandharipande
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Do flat detector cardiac X-ray systems convey advantages over image-intensifier-based systems? Study comparing X-ray dose and image quality.

Authors:  Andrew G Davies; Arnold R Cowen; Stephen M Kengyelics; Janet Moore; Mohan U Sivananthan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-11-18       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A comparison of angiographic CT and multisection CT in lumbar myelographic imaging.

Authors:  J-H Buhk; E Elolf; D Jacob; H-H Rustenbeck; A Mohr; M Knauth
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007-12-07       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Assessment of thoracic aortic conformational changes by four-dimensional computed tomography angiography in patients with chronic aortic dissection type b.

Authors:  Tim F Weber; Maria-Katharina Ganten; Dittmar Böckler; Philipp Geisbüsch; Annette Kopp-Schneider; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Radiation dose measurements in coronary CT angiography.

Authors:  Akmal Sabarudin; Zhonghua Sun
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2013-12-26

8.  Consequences of modern anthropometric dimensions for radiographic techniques and patient radiation exposures.

Authors:  Chintan Shah; A Kyle Jones; Charles E Willis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U.S. practice.

Authors:  Donald L Miller; Deukwoo Kwon; Grant H Bonavia
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Experimental study of intracranial hematoma detection with flat panel detector C-arm CT.

Authors:  H Arakawa; M P Marks; H M Do; D M Bouley; N Strobel; T Moore; R Fahrig
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2008-01-17       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.