Literature DB >> 17061067

An inter-hospital comparison of patient dose based on clinical indications.

W Teeuwisse1, J Geleijns, W Veldkamp.   

Abstract

Patient dose is usually estimated for a single radiographic projection or computed tomography (CT) series. In this study, patient dose was calculated for predefined clinical indications (24 radiography, 11 CT). Members of the radiology staff of each of 11 hospitals were trained in dose measurement and calculation techniques. Based on clinical indications participants decided on imaging protocols and calculated cumulative effective dose for a complete examination. Effective dose ranged from <1 microSv to 0.6 mSv for examinations with radiographs and from 0.2 to 12 mSv for CT scans. Differences in the imaging protocols contributedd to a substantial variation in patient dose. For mammography, average glandular dose (AGD) was estimated for 32-, 53- and 90-mm compressed breast thicknesses, with a median value of 0.74, 1.74 and 3.40 mGy, respectively. The results presented here demonstrate that a pragmatic choice of dosimetry methods enables local staff to estimate effective dose. The inclusion of imaging protocols in the dose surveys provided a broader view on the variations in patient dose between hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17061067     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0473-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  8 in total

1.  Application of draft European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey.

Authors:  J Clarke; K Cranley; J Robinson; P H Smith; A Workman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.

Authors:  D R Dance; C L Skinner; K C Young; J R Beckett; C J Kotre
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Survey of computed tomography techniques and absorbed dose in Italian hospitals: a comparison between two methods to estimate the dose-length product and the effective dose and to verify fulfilment of the diagnostic reference levels.

Authors:  Daniela Origgi; Sabrina Vigorito; Gaetano Villa; Massimo Bellomi; Giampiero Tosi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-12       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Patient dose due to colon examination: dose assessment and results from a survey in The Netherlands.

Authors:  J Geleijns; J J Broerse; M P Shaw; F W Schultz; W Teeuwisse; J G van Unnik; J Zoetelief
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Radiation exposure in multi-slice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey.

Authors:  G Brix; H D Nagel; G Stamm; R Veit; U Lechel; J Griebel; M Galanski
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-04-10       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  A Nordic survey of patient doses in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  P Grøn; H M Olerud; G Einarsson; W Leitz; A Servomaa; B W Schoultz; O Hjardemaal
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography.

Authors:  R L Kruger; B A Schueler
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  A comparison of patient dose for examinations of the upper gastrointestinal tract at 11 conventional and digital X-ray units in The Netherlands.

Authors:  J Geleijns; J J Broerse; M P Chandie Shaw; F W Schultz; W Teeuwisse; J G Van Unnik; J Zoetelief
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.039

  8 in total
  7 in total

1.  Diagnostic value of routine chest radiography in febrile, neutropenic children for early detection of pneumonia and mould infections.

Authors:  Stefan D Roberts; Gregory M Wells; Nilay M Gandhi; Nowell R York; Gabriela Maron; Bassem Razzouk; Randall T Hayden; Sue C Kaste; Jerry L Shenep
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence in diagnostic imaging: impact on the radiography profession.

Authors:  Maryann Hardy; Hugh Harvey
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Current knowledge on tumour induction by computed tomography should be carefully used.

Authors:  Cristian Candela-Juan; Alegría Montoro; Enrique Ruiz-Martínez; Juan Ignacio Villaescusa; Luis Martí-Bonmatí
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Effective dose assessment for participants in the National Lung Screening Trial undergoing posteroanterior chest radiographic examinations.

Authors:  Randell Kruger; Michael J Flynn; Phillip F Judy; Christopher H Cagnon; J Anthony Seibert
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  The role of plain radiography in paediatric wrist trauma.

Authors:  Annelie Slaar; Abdelali Bentohami; Jasper Kessels; Taco S Bijlsma; Bart A van Dijkman; Mario Maas; Jim C H Wilde; J Carel Goslings; Niels W L Schep
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2012-06-26

6.  A national survey on radiation dose in CT in The Netherlands.

Authors:  A J van der Molen; A Schilham; P Stoop; M Prokop; J Geleijns
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2013-05-15

7.  Daily routine versus on-demand chest radiograph policy and practice in adult ICU patients- clinicians' perspective.

Authors:  Abdullah Al Shahrani; Khaled Al-Surimi
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 1.930

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.