Literature DB >> 30877467

X-ray examination dose surveys: how accurate are my results?

Stephen Taylor1, Alain Van Muylem2, Nigel Howarth3, Pierre Alain Gevenois4, Denis Tack5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the variabilities of dose-area-products (DAP) of frequent X-ray examinations collected for comparison with diagnostic reference levels (DRLs).
METHODS: DAP values of chest, abdomen, and lumbar spine examinations obtained on devices from two manufacturers were collected in three centers over 1 to 2 years. The variability of the average DAP results defined as the 95% confidence interval in percentage of their median value was calculated for increasing sample sizes, each examination and center. We computed the sample sizes yielding variabilities lower or equal to 25% and 10%. The effect of narrowing patient selection based on body weight was also investigated (ranges of 67-73 Kg, or 60-80 Kg).
RESULTS: DAP variabilities ranged from 75 to 170% of the median value when collecting small samples (10 to 20 DAP). To reduce this variability, larger samples are needed, collected over up to 2 years, regardless of the examination and center. A variability ≤ 10% could only be reached for chest X-rays, requiring up to 800 data. For the abdomen and lumbar spine, the lowest achievable variability was 25%, regardless of the body weight selection, requiring up to 400 data.
CONCLUSION: Variabilities in DAP collected through small samples of ten data as recommended by authorities are very high, but can be reduced down to 25% (abdomen and lumbar spine) or even 10% (chest) through a substantial increase in sample sizes. Our findings could assist radiologists and regulatory authorities in estimating the reliability of the data obtained when performing X-ray dose surveys. KEY POINTS: • Low but reasonable variabilities cannot be reached with samples sized as recommended by regulatory authorities. Higher numbers of DAP values are required to reduce the variability. • Variabilities of 10% for the chest and 25% for abdomen and lumbar spine examinations are achievable, provided large samples of data are collected over 1 year. • Our results could help radiologists and authorities interpret X-rays dose surveys.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Radiation protection; Radiography; Surveys and questionnaires

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30877467     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06055-5

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


  6 in total

1.  Diagnostic radiology in Norway trends in examination frequency and collective effective dose.

Authors:  Ingelin Børretzen; Kristin Bakke Lysdahl; Hilde Merete Olerud
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 2.  Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog.

Authors:  Fred A Mettler; Walter Huda; Terry T Yoshizumi; Mahadevappa Mahesh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Through the Looking Glass revisited: the need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT.

Authors:  Alexander A Bankier; Herbert Y Kressel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  ICRP Publication 135: Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging.

Authors:  E Vañó; D L Miller; C J Martin; M M Rehani; K Kang; M Rosenstein; P Ortiz-López; S Mattsson; R Padovani; A Rogers
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2017-10

5.  Size-specific dose estimates for adult patients at CT of the torso.

Authors:  Jodie A Christner; Natalie N Braun; Megan C Jacobsen; Rickey E Carter; James M Kofler; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  CT dose survey in adults: what sample size for what precision?

Authors:  Stephen Taylor; Alain Van Muylem; Nigel Howarth; Pierre Alain Gevenois; Denis Tack
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.