PATIENT DOSES IN COMMON DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY EXAMINATIONS
A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, wit...
Saved in:
Published in | Radiation protection dosimetry Vol. 184; no. 1; pp. 12 - 27 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
01.07.2019
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality. |
---|---|
AbstractList | A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality. A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality.A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality. |
Author | Metaxas, Vasileios I Messaris, Gerasimos A Petsas, Theodore G Panayiotakis, George S Lekatou, Aristea N |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Vasileios I surname: Metaxas fullname: Metaxas, Vasileios I organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece – sequence: 2 givenname: Gerasimos A surname: Messaris fullname: Messaris, Gerasimos A organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece – sequence: 3 givenname: Aristea N surname: Lekatou fullname: Lekatou, Aristea N organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece – sequence: 4 givenname: Theodore G surname: Petsas fullname: Petsas, Theodore G organization: Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece – sequence: 5 givenname: George S surname: Panayiotakis fullname: Panayiotakis, George S organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30289498$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNpt0M9PgzAUwPHGzLgfevEPMByNCa6vFNoeCcNJ4sAIh3kipZQEw2BSdth_L2bTg_H0Lp_3kvedo0nbtRqhW8CPgIWz7PflslVH8MQFmgGjxHYo9iZohoFSm1OCp2huzAfGhAmXXqGpgwkXVPAZcl_9LArjzFolaZhaUWwFyWaTxNYq8tdxkmZRYG3tN__dCrf-JopHncTpNbqsZGP0zXkuUPYUZsGz_ZKso8B_sRXhbLBdYEVValEJoNp1OeWiwsA4QMkAMyGUYoWnCubJgmPuOpIzDQSgKkrNibNA96ez-777PGgz5LvaKN00stXdweSj9LiLOXdGenemh2Kny3zf1zvZH_OfT0fwcAKq74zpdfVLAOffGfMxY37KOGL8B6t6kEPdtUMv6-a_lS8MaHAf |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radi_2022_04_002 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncad294 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncac183 crossref_primary_10_4102_hsag_v26i0_1622 crossref_primary_10_3390_bioengineering9120811 crossref_primary_10_1002_acm2_13852 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2024_111942 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apradiso_2022_110451 crossref_primary_10_1097_HP_0000000000001778 crossref_primary_10_15415_jmrh_2019_52006 crossref_primary_10_1080_10420150_2024_2309201 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph191711109 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncab018 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apradiso_2021_110049 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncaa007 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncz172 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apradiso_2023_110723 crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6498_acfc51 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2022_110541 crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000004247 crossref_primary_10_2106_JBJS_19_01053 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00411_024_01080_5 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics12081872 crossref_primary_10_54489_ijtim_v3i2_281 crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6498_aba083 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncaa072 crossref_primary_10_1093_bjr_tqae218 crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6498_ad3837 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2020_108888 crossref_primary_10_17946_JRST_2020_43_3_155 crossref_primary_10_2174_1573405619666230322102011 crossref_primary_10_1088_2057_1976_ad16c1 crossref_primary_10_1002_hsr2_1424 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12909_021_02827_0 crossref_primary_10_3390_bioengineering10080970 crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare11050686 crossref_primary_10_1142_S2196888824400037 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2023_110990 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncaa114 crossref_primary_10_52560_2713_0118_2024_2_10_26 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2022_110470 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncad286 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00411_022_01014_z |
Cites_doi | 10.1093/rpd/nci728 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002 10.4065/mcp.2010.0260 10.1093/rpd/nch343 10.1259/0007-1285-64-764-771 10.1259/bjr/01948454 10.1259/bjr/74571469 10.1259/bjr/56572915 10.1259/bjr/42893576 10.1093/rpd/nct069 10.1093/rpd/ncq102 10.1093/rpd/ncl137 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.060 10.1259/bjr/32912696 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.025 10.1259/0007-1285-68-816-1332 10.1093/rpd/nch562 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.013 10.1093/rpd/nch432 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.033 10.1016/j.radi.2013.09.002 10.1093/rpd/ncn013 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.01.015 10.1093/rpd/ncv186 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
DOI | 10.1093/rpd/ncy169 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1742-3406 |
EndPage | 27 |
ExternalDocumentID | 30289498 10_1093_rpd_ncy169 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- -E4 .2P .I3 .ZR 0R~ 123 1TH 29P 4.4 48X 53G 5VS 5WA 5WD 70D AABZA AACZT AAIJN AAJKP AAJQQ AAMDB AAMVS AAOGV AAPNW AAPQZ AAPXW AARHZ AAUAY AAUQX AAVAP AAYXX ABDFA ABDTM ABEJV ABEUO ABGNP ABIXL ABJNI ABKDP ABNHQ ABNKS ABPQP ABPTD ABQLI ABQNK ABVGC ABWST ABXVV ABZBJ ACGFS ACUFI ACUTJ ACUTO ACUXJ ACYHN ACYTK ADBBV ADEYI ADEZT ADGZP ADHKW ADHZD ADIPN ADMLS ADNBA ADOCK ADQBN ADRDM ADRTK ADVEK ADYJX ADYVW ADZXQ AECKG AEGPL AEJOX AEKKA AEKSI AEMDU AEMQT AENEX AENZO AEPUE AETBJ AEWNT AFFZL AFIYH AFOFC AFXAL AFYAG AGINJ AGKEF AGORE AGQXC AGSYK AGUTN AHGBF AHMMS AHXPO AIJHB AJBYB AJEEA AJEUX AJNCP AKWXX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALTZX ALUQC ALXQX ANAKG APIBT APWMN ATGXG AXUDD AZVOD BAYMD BCRHZ BEYMZ BHONS BQUQU BTQHN BTRTY BVRKM C45 CDBKE CITATION CS3 CZ4 DAKXR DILTD DU5 D~K EBD EBS EE~ EJD EMOBN ENERS F5P F9B FECEO FLIZI FLUFQ FOEOM FOTVD FQBLK GAUVT GJXCC H13 H5~ HAR HW0 HZ~ IOX J21 JXSIZ KAQDR KBUDW KOP KSI KSN M-Z MHKGH N9A NGC NMDNZ NOMLY NOYVH NU- O9- OAUYM OAWHX OCZFY ODMLO OJQWA OJZSN OPAEJ OVD OWPYF P2P PAFKI PEELM Q1. Q5Y RD5 RNS ROL ROX ROZ RUSNO RW1 RXO SV3 TEORI TJP TJX X7H YAYTL YKOAZ YXANX ZKX ~91 ADJQC ADRIX AFXEN CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF M49 NPM 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-517bfde9f914e558489f017811d710799cc7b6cb76ab80853a87e1211fbde823 |
ISSN | 0144-8420 1742-3406 |
IngestDate | Fri Jul 11 00:32:21 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 02:32:00 EST 2025 Tue Jul 01 01:29:26 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 22:51:12 EDT 2025 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Language | English |
License | https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c287t-517bfde9f914e558489f017811d710799cc7b6cb76ab80853a87e1211fbde823 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
PMID | 30289498 |
PQID | 2116850883 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 16 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2116850883 pubmed_primary_30289498 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncy169 crossref_citationtrail_10_1093_rpd_ncy169 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2019-07-01 2019-Jul-01 20190701 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2019-07-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 07 year: 2019 text: 2019-07-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | England |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
PublicationTitle | Radiation protection dosimetry |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Radiat Prot Dosimetry |
PublicationYear | 2019 |
References | (2019072512300520100_ncy169C44) 2018 Honey (2019072512300520100_ncy169C38) 2005; 78 Wall (2019072512300520100_ncy169C30) 2011 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2019072512300520100_ncy169C1) 2010 International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C12) 2007 Vano (2019072512300520100_ncy169C40) 1995; 68 Ziliukas (2019072512300520100_ncy169C24) 2010; 139 Elshiekh (2019072512300520100_ncy169C29) 2015; 165 Malone (2019072512300520100_ncy169C45) 2012; 85 Blanco (2019072512300520100_ncy169C22) 2013; 156 International Atomic Energy Agency (2019072512300520100_ncy169C37) 2007 Hart (2019072512300520100_ncy169C41) 1991; 64 International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (2019072512300520100_ncy169C20) 2005 Zetteberg (2019072512300520100_ncy169C8) 2011; 84 Compagnone (2019072512300520100_ncy169C27) 2005; 113 Simeonov (2019072512300520100_ncy169C43) 2017; 41 European Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C16) 1999 Roch (2019072512300520100_ncy169C32) 2018; 98 Samei (2019072512300520100_ncy169C5) 2005; 114 Lin (2019072512300520100_ncy169C10) 2010; 85 International Atomic Energy Agency (2019072512300520100_ncy169C15) 1996 (2019072512300520100_ncy169C2) 2014 (2019072512300520100_ncy169C36) 2018 Fitousi (2019072512300520100_ncy169C9) 2017; 44 International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C13) 2004 (2019072512300520100_ncy169C35) 2018 Greek Atomic Energy Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C42) Faggioni (2019072512300520100_ncy169C31) 2017; 86 Ceijer (2019072512300520100_ncy169C39) 2009; 82 European Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C21) 2014 European Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C19) 2008 Compagnone (2019072512300520100_ncy169C25) 2008; 129 Carmichael (2019072512300520100_ncy169C17) 1996 Suliman (2019072512300520100_ncy169C26) 2007; 123 Hall (2019072512300520100_ncy169C3) 2008; 81 Kawashima (2019072512300520100_ncy169C7) 2017; 34 Hart (2019072512300520100_ncy169C23) 2012 International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C11) 2007 Tapiovaara (2019072512300520100_ncy169C34) 2008 Harding (2019072512300520100_ncy169C6) 2014; 20 International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C18) 2017 International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C14) 1991 Uffmann (2019072512300520100_ncy169C33) 2009; 72 Busch (2019072512300520100_ncy169C4) 2006; 117 Aroua (2019072512300520100_ncy169C28) 2004; 111 |
References_xml | – volume: 117 start-page: 143 year: 2006 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C4 article-title: Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimization publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/nci728 – volume: 98 start-page: 68 year: 2018 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C32 article-title: Using diagnostic reference levels to evaluate the improvement of patient dose optimisation and the influence of recent technologies in radiography and computed tomography publication-title: Eur. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002 – volume: 85 start-page: 1142 year: 2010 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C10 article-title: Concise review for physicians. Radiation risk from medical imaging publication-title: Mayo Clin. Proc. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0260 – year: 2007 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C37 – year: 2004 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C13 – year: 2012 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C23 – year: 2014 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C2 – year: 1999 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C16 – volume: 111 start-page: 289 year: 2004 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C28 article-title: Adult reference levels in diagnostic and interventional radiology for temporary use in Switzerland publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch343 – year: 2018 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C36 – year: 2008 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C34 – volume: 64 start-page: 771 year: 1991 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C41 article-title: The significant of patient weight when comparing X-ray room performance against guidance levels of dose publication-title: Br. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-64-764-771 – volume: 81 start-page: 362 year: 2008 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C3 article-title: Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology publication-title: Br. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1259/bjr/01948454 – year: 2007 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C11 – volume: 84 start-page: 566 year: 2011 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C8 article-title: Lumbar spine radiography—poor collimation practices after implementation of digital technology publication-title: Br. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1259/bjr/74571469 – year: 2014 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C21 – year: 1996 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C17 – volume: 82 start-page: 62 year: 2009 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C39 article-title: Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel detector publication-title: Br. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1259/bjr/56572915 – volume: 85 start-page: 523 year: 2012 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C45 article-title: Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an international atomic energy agency consultation publication-title: Br. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1259/bjr/42893576 – year: 2017 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C18 – volume: 156 start-page: 303 year: 2013 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C22 article-title: Determination of diagnostic reference levels in general radiography in latin America publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/nct069 – volume: 139 start-page: 313 year: 2010 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C24 article-title: Management of patient doses and diagnostic reference levels in X-ray radiography in Lithuania publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncq102 – year: 2008 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C19 – volume: 123 start-page: 209 year: 2007 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C26 article-title: Entrance surface doses to patients undergoing selected diagnostic X-ray examinations in Sudan publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncl137 – volume: 72 start-page: 202 year: 2009 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C33 article-title: Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose publication-title: Eur. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.060 – volume: 78 start-page: 422 year: 2005 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C38 article-title: Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film screen and computed radiography publication-title: Br. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1259/bjr/32912696 – volume: 41 start-page: 87 year: 2017 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C43 article-title: Web-based platform for patient dose surveys in diagnostic and interventional radiology in Bulgaria: functionality testing and optimisation publication-title: Phys. Med. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.025 – year: 2011 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C30 – volume: 68 start-page: 1332 year: 1995 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C40 article-title: Image quality and dose in lumbar spine examinations: results of 5 years quality control programme following the European quality criteria trial publication-title: Br. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-816-1332 – volume: 114 start-page: 220 year: 2005 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C5 article-title: A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch562 – volume: 44 start-page: 212 year: 2017 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C9 article-title: Patient dose monitoring systems: a new way of managing patient dose and quality in the radiology department publication-title: Phys. Med. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.013 – year: 2018 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C35 – year: 1991 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C14 – year: 1996 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C15 – volume: 113 start-page: 54 year: 2005 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C27 article-title: Local diagnostic reference levels in standard X-ray examinations publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch432 – ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C42 – volume: 86 start-page: 135 year: 2017 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C31 article-title: Awareness of radiation protection and dose levels of imaging procedures among medical students, radiography students, and radiology residents at an academic hospital: Results of a comprehensive survey publication-title: Eur. J. Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.033 – volume: 20 start-page: 22 year: 2014 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C6 article-title: Optimum patient orientation for pelvic and hip radiography: a randomized trial publication-title: Radiography doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2013.09.002 – volume: 129 start-page: 135 year: 2008 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C25 article-title: Patient dose in digital projection radiography publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncn013 – volume: 34 start-page: 65 year: 2017 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C7 article-title: X-ray dose reduction using additional cooper filtration for abdominal digital radiography: evaluation using signal difference-to-noise ratio publication-title: Phys. Med. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.01.015 – volume: 165 start-page: 402 year: 2015 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C29 article-title: A comparative study of adult patient doses in film screen and computed radiography in some Sudanese hospitals publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv186 – year: 2005 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C20 – year: 2010 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C1 – year: 2007 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C12 – year: 2018 ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C44 |
SSID | ssj0027954 |
Score | 2.4213712 |
Snippet | A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data... |
SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
StartPage | 12 |
SubjectTerms | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Female Humans Lumbar Vertebrae - radiation effects Male Middle Aged Physical Examination - standards Quality Control Radiation Dosage Radiation Monitoring - methods Radiation Protection - standards Radiography - standards Radiography - statistics & numerical data Reference Values Thoracic Vertebrae - radiation effects Young Adult |
Title | PATIENT DOSES IN COMMON DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY EXAMINATIONS |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30289498 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2116850883 |
Volume | 184 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3db5swELeyVpr2MnWfzb7EtL1MiDXEBuxH1GRrpkKqhk3ZEwJjpEhrqIBU0_76nbGBZOmkbi8IERuC78f5zr77HULvx8QjTGb3OJwyi3iZsBjFIyvNOSdcuNwZyWzkIHTPvpIvS2c5GNxsRS1t6vQj_3VrXsn_SBWugVxlluw_SLa7KVyAc5AvHEHCcLyTjC_8aDYNI3MyB61ozkLzdC51pDmZ-Z_D-SKCEV5al_53c7r0g5kivl1sm6OXkpmgQYDma5CnWVGtrkS9FR8s6uSnSvz6llSgRlZF1a-2BrKISrnSK-wlNLiCnztgnAuZorRpdFDZYKrf_bkQdZXoOCVRyJonutSXXoZoMp_aZYh2ZZJYlIzVJotQ2hT8bguTkburbskerpTy1PHUahpWjAF7Cl6RX5XXUqAw-9iqzssuj_Yf81sXdaj223EMvWPV9x46HIN7Afrx0J8E54veVWeOYoXXL9US2zJ8Ar1PVO9dU-Yv_kljp0RH6KF2MAxfoeURGoj1Y3Q_0CEUT5CjQWM0oDFmoaFAY_SgMRrQGNugeYqiT9Po9MzStTMsDj5wbTm2l-aZYDmziXDAyqQsB-VLbTsDm9JjjHMvdXnquUlKwezGCfWEpPvL00zQMX6GDtbFWhwjg2YedVzmpRl8vXZuJ042ysFK5VhkPMf5EH1oRyHmmldeljf5Ee-P9xC969peKzaVW1u9bQczBmUnd7CStSg2VQz_z6XSpcBD9FyNcncfLPfMCaMv7vSMl-hBj-JX6KAuN-I1mJd1-kZj4TdXhXW2 |
linkProvider | EBSCOhost |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PATIENT+DOSES+IN+COMMON+DIAGNOSTIC+X-RAY+EXAMINATIONS&rft.jtitle=Radiation+protection+dosimetry&rft.au=Metaxas%2C+Vasileios+I&rft.au=Messaris%2C+Gerasimos+A&rft.au=Lekatou%2C+Aristea+N&rft.au=Petsas%2C+Theodore+G&rft.date=2019-07-01&rft.issn=0144-8420&rft.eissn=1742-3406&rft.volume=184&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12&rft.epage=27&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093%2Frpd%2Fncy169&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1093_rpd_ncy169 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0144-8420&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0144-8420&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0144-8420&client=summon |