Literature DB >> 18772273

Quality initiatives* radiation risk: what you should know to tell your patient.

Francis R Verdun1, François Bochud, François Gundinchet, Abbas Aroua, Pierre Schnyder, Reto Meuli.   

Abstract

The steady increase in the number of radiologic procedures being performed is undeniably having a beneficial impact on healthcare. However, it is also becoming common practice to quantify the health detriment from radiation exposure by calculating the number of cancer-related deaths inferred from the effective dose delivered to a given patient population. The inference of a certain number of expected deaths from the effective dose is to be discouraged, but it remains important as a means of raising professional awareness of the danger associated with ionizing radiation. The risk associated with a radiologic examination appears to be rather low compared with the natural risk. However, any added risk, no matter how small, is unacceptable if it does not benefit the patient. The concept of diagnostic reference levels should be used to reduce variations in practice among institutions and to promote optimal dose indicator ranges for specific imaging protocols. In general, the basic principles of radiation protection (eg, justification and optimization of a procedure) need to be respected to help counteract the unjustified explosion in the number of procedures being performed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18772273     DOI: 10.1148/rg.287085042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  21 in total

Review 1.  Radiation risk from medical imaging.

Authors:  Eugene C Lin
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.616

2.  Eight-second MRI scan for evaluation of shunted hydrocephalus.

Authors:  Scott D Wait; Ryan Lingo; Frederick A Boop; Stephanie L Einhaus
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 3.  Radiation dose of cardiac CT--what is the evidence?

Authors:  Hatem Alkadhi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Radial differential interior tomography and its image reconstruction with differentiated backprojection and projection onto convex sets.

Authors:  Shaojie Tang; Xiangyang Tang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Improved delineation of ventricular shunt catheters using fast steady-state gradient recalled-echo sequences in a rapid brain MR imaging protocol in nonsedated pediatric patients.

Authors:  J H Miller; T Walkiewicz; R B Towbin; J G Curran
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 6.  CT dose reduction in practice.

Authors:  Michael J Callahan
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2011-08-17

7.  Ultra-low dose contrast CT pulmonary angiography in oncology patients using a high-pitch helical dual-source technology.

Authors:  Prabhakar Rajiah; Leslie Ciancibello; Ronald Novak; Jennifer Sposato; Luis Landeras; Robert Gilkeson
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.630

8.  Conical ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI in the evaluation of pediatric acute appendicitis.

Authors:  Albert T Roh; Zhibo Xiao; Joseph Y Cheng; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Andreas M Loening
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2019-01

9.  Tracking Navigation Imaging of Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Three-Dimensional Cone-Beam CT Angiography.

Authors:  Yasunori Minami; Yukinobu Yagyu; Takamichi Murakami; Masatoshi Kudo
Journal:  Liver Cancer       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 11.740

10.  Occupational and patient radiation doses in a modern cardiac electrophysiology laboratory.

Authors:  Kevin A Wunderle; Mina K Chung; Sripriya Rayadurgam; Mark A Miller; Nancy A Obuchowski; Bruce D Lindsay
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 1.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.